Oral
Answers to
Questions

Women and Equalities

National Disability Strategy

Mohammad Yasin: What recent progress the Government have made on implementing the national disability strategy.

Tom Pursglove: In January 2022, the High Court declared the national disability strategy unlawful. We have been granted permission to appeal this declaration, but to ensure compliance with the Court’s declaration we are obliged to pause a number of the policies referred to in the strategy or are directly connected with it.

Mohammad Yasin: Research from Scope shows that life costs more for people who are disabled, and 91% of those surveyed are worried about energy bills this winter. As this weekend marks the UN International Day of Persons with Disabilities, would the Minister work with his cross-departmental colleagues to revise the eligibility criteria for the warm home discount to reinstate eligibility for the 300,000 disabled welfare claimants?

Tom Pursglove: I am very grateful to the hon. Member for his question. It is fair to say that this is a Government who have consistently been supporting people during the significant cost of living challenges that they face. Of course, we have the energy price guarantee, which is a significant part of that package, but I am sure that Ministers in Departments across Government would be very happy to engage with him on the particular point he raises about the warm home discount.

Tom Hunt: We know that a key challenge for many young people with disabilities is getting assessments and getting them funded, so that they and their parents can find out what disabilities they have. I have a constituent who has been told they must wait up to 18 months for an assessment to find out whether they have autism to be completed. Is there an opportunity in the national disability strategy to better enable and fund the accessibility—and accelerate the completion—of those assessments, which can make a life-changing difference to individuals?

Tom Pursglove: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important point. The autism strategy is in place, having had a refresh launched in July 2021 and £74 million of funding in the first year. With the first year having concluded, we will publish our second implementation plan to make further progress on delivering the actions in the strategy. As part of the deliberations on that, we will consider the interesting point that he raises.

Violence against Women and Girls

Virendra Sharma: What recent steps the Government have taken to help tackle violence against women and girls.

Gill Furniss: What recent discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on tackling violence against women and girls.

Sarah Dines: Tackling violence against women and girls is a Government priority. We have made significant progress since publishing the cross-Government tackling violence against women and girls strategy and the tackling domestic abuse plan. That includes launching our national communications campaign “Enough”, resulting in tens of thousands of visits to the website, as well as £55 million of extra funding for CCTV and street lighting to prevent these crimes from happening, with £230 million committed cross-Government to tackling this heinous crime.

Virendra Sharma: New statistics show that just one in 10 victims of partner abuse reported it to the police last year, which means thousands of victims are suffering in silence with no route to justice. The appalling Solihull murders showed just how important the police response to domestic abuse is; where it falls short, the impact can be fatal. Will the Minister listen to Labour and put a domestic abuse specialist in 999 control rooms so that victims who are most at risk can be identified and helped quickly?

Sarah Dines: I am very grateful to the hon. Member for raising this. I remind the House that it is this Government who have acted in the most robust way possible. The landmark Domestic Abuse Act 2021 was introduced in April last year, but this is about many things: prevention, education, supporting victims, pursuing perpetrators and doing good old-fashioned police work sensitively. I will take no lessons from the Opposition in relation to this sort of issue.

Gill Furniss: The levels of racist and sexist abuse uncovered in the London Fire Brigade are truly shocking. The independent review tells of women having to run a daily gauntlet of sexist abuse, and one woman even received video calls from a man exposing himself. Such incidents amount to nothing less than misogynistic hate crimes, so will this finally be the wake-up call that this Government need to class misogyny as a hate crime  in law?

Sarah Dines: I look forward to Sadiq Khan, Mayor of London, tackling this issue—he has been rather slow on it. This Government are fundamentally in support of proper education to protect people, including women  and all other vulnerable people within the force. The Opposition really need to look at their own leaders first, and this Government will continue to work hard.

Caroline Nokes: In one week it will be exactly a year since the Law Commission recommended that public sexual harassment be made a specific crime. Does my hon. Friend agree with Plan International, the Girl Guides, Soroptimist International, Our Streets Now, and many other organisations, and will she either back the Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Bill, or bring forward her own legislation?

Sarah Dines: I thank my right hon. Friend for her campaigning and work in this area. I am always impressed when organisations such as the Girl Guides say something, because it usually has merit. I ask her to be just slightly more patient, because I am hoping for some news in this space very soon.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister, Anneliese Dodds.

Anneliese Dodds: Following White Ribbon day on Friday, we remember all victims and survivors of violence against women and girls. Last year, only 1.5% of reported rape and sexual violence offences resulted in a conviction. The Minister is right: tackling this issue requires multiple actions, but the Government refuse to take those actions and, sadly, in her responses she was instead seeking to pass the buck. May I ask a straight question? Why will the Government not introduce the following three measures: specialist rape courts, rape and domestic abuse specialists in every police force, and the domestic violence register that Labour has called for?

Sarah Dines: This Government have undertaken a committed review of that area. They have committed to the end-to-end rape review. For example, no adult rape crime victim should be left without a phone for more than 24 hours. We are on track to deliver many of those new initiatives, and that work goes across Departments. The hon. Lady asked about specialist rape courts, and as a practising barrister for 30 years I expect all courts to deal with rape properly. All these issues are serious and will be addressed.

Conversion Therapy: Legislation

Nia Griffith: What the Government’s planned timetable is for bringing forward legislative proposals on conversion therapy.

Hannah Bardell: If the Government will take steps to help protect trans people from conversion therapy.

Kemi Badenoch: The Government are committed to protecting people from these practices. We are carefully considering the responses to the public consultation on banning conversion practices, which closed this year, and we will set out our next steps and the Government’s response in due course.

Nia Griffith: That is a deeply disappointing answer, because every day that the Minister delays the Bill, LGBT individuals can be subject to abhorrent and deeply damaging conversion therapy. It is now eight months since the consultation closed, and four years since the Government first promised a ban, so I beg the Minister to bring forward a Bill as soon as possible. Will she reassure the House that the Government’s proposed legislation will bring in a comprehensive ban on all forms of conversion therapy, and include the protection of trans people?

Kemi Badenoch: This is a very serious issue, and one reason that it is taking so long is that we are being very considered. Many of the things that people asked for when we first started talking about conversion therapy practices are different from what we are looking at now, so the scope has widened. More importantly, I reassure LGBT people that we can tackle these issues with existing law. We are being very careful in our considerations of what will come into the Bill. The answer that the hon. Lady is requesting will follow on from the consultation, and that will come in due course.

Hannah Bardell: A lot of words and no action. In 2018 a promise was made that conversion practices would be banned. Four years and four Prime Ministers later, this disastrous Tory Government are going backwards with some on their Benches actively fanning the flames of hatred and bigotry towards trans people. When will this Tory Government follow the lead of the SNP Government in Scotland, take action to ban conversion practices, and stop putting trans peoples’ lives at risk?

Kemi Badenoch: The hon. Lady from the SNP is, of course, talking absolute nonsense. Government Members are legislators and what we are going to do is bring a robust Bill into law, not one that will be helpful for her to send her tweets. This is about looking after vulnerable people and not about social media campaigning.

Peter Gibson: Does my right hon. Friend understand the LGBT community’s anxiety when it comes to the ban? It has appeared in multiple Queen’s Speeches, yet we are still to see any draft legislation.

Kemi Badenoch: My hon. Friend asks a good question. I do understand the anxiety. One of the things that I am trying to do is take a lot of the heat out of the debate. Questions such as that from the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell), which seek to inflame anxiety and make people worried about what we are doing, are not helpful. This is something that I am committed to doing. He is right that we have raised it and promised it multiple times. The reason it is taking so long is that it is not as simple as Opposition Members would like it to be. This is a very complex area and, when we do it, we will do it right and permanently.

James Gray: My constituent Paula Wren is proud to be trans and proud to be a Conservative. She would call straightforwardly for an end to the absurd practice of conversion therapy. It is completely unnecessary for trans people, and the sooner the Government can bring in the Bill, the better it will be.

Kemi Badenoch: I agree.

Lindsay Hoyle: We come to the SNP spokesperson.

Kirsten Oswald: Last year, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss)—the most recent former Prime Minister—described conversion therapy as an “abhorrent practice” in the ministerial foreword to the Government’s consultation on banning conversion therapy. Some 11% of trans people in the UK report having been subjected to that so-called therapy by their own families, and those individuals who are subjected to the practice are significantly more likely to have attempted suicide than their peers. I am disappointed in what I have heard, which seems like more kicking into the long grass. Does the right hon. Lady understand that conversion therapy is abhorrent? If so, why will her Government not commit to preventing this harm to trans people by banning the practice for everyone?

Kemi Badenoch: It is quite clear that the hon. Lady did not hear any of the answers that I have given, because she has asked something that I have answered multiple times. I refer her to the answers I gave to all those hon. Members.

Health Disparities White Paper

Liz Twist: Whether she has had recent discussions with the Secretary of State for Health on a timetable for the publication of a health disparities White Paper.

Maria Caulfield: The Department continues to review how health disparities can be addressed. In relation to the health disparities White Paper, further information will be available in due course.

Liz Twist: There is a 20-year gap in healthy life expectancy between those who live in the most deprived areas of the country and those who live in the least. In Gateshead, my local authority, healthy life expectancy is 57.9 years for men and 58.5 years for women compared with a national average of over 63 years. The Conservative party promised in its 2019 manifesto to increase
“healthy life expectancy by five years by 2035.”
Will the Minister come clean and admit that, according to figures from the Office for National Statistics, the Government are not on track to hit that?

Maria Caulfield: This is the first Government to want to tackle health disparities, which have been in place for generations. It is true that a woman born in Blackpool can expect to live eight fewer years than someone in Wokingham, but that is why the levelling up White Paper included a levelling up health mission to narrow the gap in healthy life expectancy between local areas by 2030. I refer the hon. Lady to the Core20PLUS5 work done by NHS England that is tackling the five single health indicators that are most expanding health disparities in the 20% most deprived communities.

Jo Gideon: Does the Minister agree that the health disparities White Paper is fundamentally an equalities White Paper and about levelling up, so areas such as Stoke-on-Trent, where we have significant issues with affordable, healthy food and  an obesity emergency, need to know that the White Paper will cover those recommendations put forward in the national food strategy?

Maria Caulfield: Of course, the health disparities White Paper is important, but work has already started on disparities. As I set out, the NHS has already launched the Core20PLUS5, where the 20% most deprived communities are being targeted with interventions in the five most clinically significant areas. Those are maternity, mental health, respiratory disease, cancer and hypertension. Work has already started, and I know that that is of particular interest in areas such as Stoke.

Yasmin Qureshi: A new World Health Organisation study, published in The Lancet, found that poorer women in Britain have some of the highest cancer death rates in Europe. Income levels should not be the marker of someone’s chances of getting and dying from cancer. Does the Minister recognise that that is not acceptable, and will she commit to a cross-Government strategy that tackles health inequalities?

Maria Caulfield: I refer the shadow Minister to the work that the Government are already doing. Cancer in particular is one of the five core areas in which we are investing significant resources to diagnose people earlier. She may be interested in the lung cancer detection vans, which go to those communities with the highest incidence rates and poorer outcomes for lung cancer. Some 70% of people with stage 1 or 2 cancer are being detected, significantly improving their life expectancy.

Women in the Workplace

Joanna Cherry: What steps the Government are taking to help support women in the workplace.

Maria Caulfield: I confirm the Government’s commitment to the empowerment of women in the workplace. Over the last few years, the number of women in full-time work has increased and the gender pay gap has fallen considerably. There is more work to be done and we have announced groundbreaking pay transparency pilots, a number of new returners programmes and a taskforce for women-led high-growth enterprises.

Joanna Cherry: I thank the Minister for her answer. The outgoing vice-chancellor of Oxford University, Professor Dame Louise Richardson, says that she has been shaken by the level of threat and harassment experienced by female academics. To be clear, it is not sexual harassment; it is harassment of female academics because of their belief, in particular, that sex matters and their refusal to agree with extreme gender identity ideology. That harassment often comes from students and third parties, and is not confined to universities—it exists in other workplaces. Can the Minister tell me what the Government are doing to address such harassment in the workplace?

Maria Caulfield: I thank the hon. and learned Lady for her work in this space, which is vital. I point her to the private Member’s Bill on workplace harassment that the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) is promoting, with Government support, which will introduce  legal protections giving employers an explicit duty to prevent workplace harassment by third parties. I look forward to working with the hon. and learned Lady on that Bill.

Maria Miller: Sexual harassment disproportionately affects women in work. Back in 2020, a Government survey showed that half of those who reported sexual harassment at work were asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement, which effectively silences victims. To support more women in work, will my hon. Friend look at rolling out more widely the Education Secretary’s successful campaign to stamp out the use of non-disclosure agreements in universities so that more women can benefit from the approach the Government have already undertaken?

Maria Caulfield: I thank my right hon. Friend for her work on this issue. I will of course speak to my colleague in the Department for Education about it, but I want to reassure my right hon. Friend that specific legislation about sexual harassment in the workplace is going through the House at the moment with Government support.

Topical Questions

Nia Griffith: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Kemi Badenoch: The Equality and Human Rights Commission is key to the advancement of equality in this country, which is why we welcome the United Nations’ recent reaccreditation of it as an “A status” national human rights institution. To support Baroness Falkner and her board, I will shortly appoint new commissioners and deputy chairs to the commission. The new commissioners will bring complementary expertise and experience to support the Equality and Human Rights Commission in upholding and advancing equality and human rights across the United Kingdom.

Nia Griffith: Early in the covid pandemic, the Welsh Government commissioned a study that showed how health inequalities affected people from black and ethnic minorities far worse, not just for any supposed medical reasons but for many social reasons. What will the Minister do to try to put right the situation where social inequalities lead to health inequalities in the black and ethnic minority population?

Kemi Badenoch: The hon. Lady may not be aware of the extensive, 18-month piece of work that I produced on covid disparities. Some of the things that she mentioned were picked up in that report and the recommendations. One was about the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities and that work is ongoing. That body will look at many of the issues that she raised.

Miriam Cates: The Government’s research demonstrates a clear link between viewing violent pornography and violence against women and girls. More and more online pornography depicts gratuitous violence against women and 50% of 12-year-olds have seen it. What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the  current and future impact of online pornography on the safety of women and girls, and does she think that the Online Safety Bill goes far enough to prevent children from seeing it?

Kemi Badenoch: My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point, and I agree with her. Protecting women and girls and preventing children from accessing harmful content, such as online pornography, is a priority for the Government. The Online Safety Bill will introduce new protections for women and girls online. Under the Bill, all services will need to proactively remove and prevent users from being exposed to priority illegal content. That includes the appalling illegal content that affects women and girls, such as revenge and extreme pornography.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Anneliese Dodds: Qatar’s record on LGBT+ rights, women’s rights and the treatment of migrant workers means that it should never have been awarded the World cup. Although FIFA’s capitulation over the One Love armband has been shameful, the least that our LGBT+ fans could expect from our Government is advice and support when travelling to matches, yet there is no advice from the Foreign Office or the Government Equalities Office for LGBT+ fans, nor—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. These are topical questions—I call the Minister.

David Rutley: Qatar has repeatedly committed that everybody is welcome at the tournament. As colleagues are aware, the Minister with responsibility for sports and equalities—my right hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew)—is in Qatar, and I fully respect his decision to wear the One Love armband.

Dean Russell: When performing my physics research during my studies more than 20 years ago, I was fortunate that my supervisor was an incredible female professor, Sue Bayliss. The impact that she had on me and the work that she did has encouraged me to support science, technology, engineering and maths for girls in all areas. Will my right hon. Friend confirm what steps the Government are taking to promote STEM in education and as a career pathway for girls so that, one day, many more millions can inspire people like me?

Maria Caulfield: I thank my hon. Friend for all his work in this space. I reassure him that, to increase the uptake of STEM education by women and girls, we are funding programmes such as the advanced mathematics support programme, the advanced maths premium, the stimulating physics network and the inclusion in schools programme. We have seen a 50% increase in the number of women taking higher education STEM courses since 2011.

Apsana Begum: In this cost of living crisis, will the Government commit to an emergency domestic abuse fund——so that all survivors can access help  with fleeing an abuser and no one is left choosing between ongoing abuse and violence, or poverty and hunger?

Kemi Badenoch: I thank the hon. Lady for her question. We have set out the multiple ways in which we are supporting vulnerable people. I am afraid I did not get all of her question, but if she wants to write to me or a Treasury Minister about a more specific issue, we can look into it in more detail.

Flick Drummond: Will the Minister update the House on what the Government are doing to support women starting up small businesses?

Maria Caulfield: I thank my hon. Friend for her work in this area. It is crucial that we get more women starting up their own businesses. We anticipate that that would bring in £250 billion to the UK economy. The taskforce that we asked Anne Boden to lead will make recommendations to Government in the new year. We know that venture capital is a huge problem stopping women starting a new business: for every pound of venture capital given to a new business, only a penny goes to women, whereas 89p goes to men.

Virendra Sharma: The Equality Act 2010 does not have the legal teeth needed for enforcement of the law. The responsibility falls entirely on the individuals who have been discriminated against to pursue legal redress. Will the Minister meet the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association to discuss its Open Doors campaign and stop the shame whereby nearly three quarters of guide dog owners have reported an access refusal in the past 12 months?

Tom Pursglove: I would be absolutely delighted to meet Guide Dogs to talk about the campaign. It is an important stakeholder in the disability sector, and we will make sure that that meeting happens.

Michael Fabricant: My right hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equalities will have seen in the news today that between 400 and 500 migrant workers were killed building the stadia in Qatar. Does that not make FIFA’s decision to choose Qatar as a location even more ridiculous? Will she join me in condemning FIFA for the way it has kowtowed to the Government of Qatar in relation to their anti-LGBT bullying?

Kemi Badenoch: My hon. Friend raises an excellent point. Ministers and senior officials have raised the concerns of LGBT visitors with Qatari authorities at all levels and will continue to engage on the issue during the World cup. In fact, the Minister for Equalities, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), is out there supporting LGBT people and continuing the engagement to ensure that they are protected.

Toby Perkins: The number of black and ethnic minority students is proportionately higher in further education colleges, but the number of black and ethnic minority lecturers  is small and the number of black and ethnic minority college leaders is tiny. What are the Government doing to address that?

Kemi Badenoch: The hon. Gentleman asks an excellent question. This is one of the issues that we looked at in our Inclusive Britain strategy. The Department for Education and the Government Equalities Office are working to ensure that we get the right proportion and representation of people in the education sector. He is right that there is under-representation; we need to look at ways within the Equality Act, such as positive action, to address that and ensure balance.

Lindsay Hoyle: Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I would like to point out that the British Sign Language interpretation of proceedings is available to watch on parliamentlive.tv.

Prime Minister

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Tommy Sheppard: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 30 November.

Rishi Sunak: I am sure that colleagues around the House will want to join me in congratulating England on last night, in commending Wales for inspiring millions and in wishing everyone a happy St Andrew’s day.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Tommy Sheppard: In 2014, the Prime Minister’s predecessor David Cameron signed up to the Smith commission, which promised among other things that
“nothing in this report prevents Scotland becoming an independent country…should the people of Scotland so choose.”
Does the Prime Minister share that view? If he does, in the light of last week’s Supreme Court judgment, will he bring forward legislation to allow that choice to be exercised?

Rishi Sunak: We did have that conversation not so many years ago—it was described as a once-in-a-generation referendum—and we discussed this last week. I think what the people of Scotland want is for us to be working constructively together to focus on their priorities. That is indeed what we are doing in the hon. Gentleman’s own area: we are investing hundreds of millions of pounds in a growth deal and ensuring that with the new concert hall we can enshrine Edinburgh’s reputation as a city of culture.

Paul Beresford: I have just returned from the south Pacific and— I have resisted the All Blacks jokes. I found a deep concern there about the expanding tentacles of communist China. Does my right hon. Friend agree that China is more than just “a systemic challenge”, as he has put it, and is in fact an expanding, serious geopolitical threat?

Rishi Sunak: China is indeed a country with fundamentally different values from ours and an authoritarian leadership intent on reshaping the international order, but actions speak louder than words. That is why we passed the National Security and Investment Act 2021. Just recently, we used that Act to block the sale of Newport Wafer Fab, and this week, with our announcement of Sizewell C, we ensured that China’s state-owned nuclear energy corporation will no longer be a part of the project. This Government are making sure that we protect our country’s security.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Leader of the Opposition.

Keir Starmer: I join the Prime Minister in saying, “Well done England”, and I hope we will be able to say that next week and the week after. I also send commiserations to Wales, who I am sure will be back in the World Cup tournament before too long. And, of course, we mark the fact that tomorrow is World AIDS Day.
Winchester College has a rowing club, a rifle club and an extensive art collection. It charges more than £45,000 a year in fees. Why did the Prime Minister hand Winchester nearly £6 million of taxpayers’ money this year, in what his Levelling Up Secretary has called “egregious state support”?

Rishi Sunak: I am pleased that the Leader of the Opposition wants to talk about schools, because we recently announced billions more in funding for our schools. We are helping millions of the most disadvantaged children to catch up with their lost learning, and we are driving up school standards. During covid, the Leader of the Opposition wanted to keep schools closed—but we should not be surprised, because I listen to parents and he listens to his union paymasters.

Keir Starmer: The Prime Minister’s Levelling Up Secretary, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), who, after all, was Education Secretary for four years—and I see him down there—has said:
“We could scarcely find a better way of doing that”
—of ending what he described as “burning injustices”—than scrapping these handouts. The Prime Minister talks about driving up standards. Just down the road from Winchester, in Southampton—and he will know this—four in every 10 pupils failed English or maths GCSE this year. Is that £6 million of taxpayers’ money better spent on rifle ranges in Winchester, or on driving up standards in Southampton?

Rishi Sunak: The Leader of the Opposition talks about school standards. It is under a Conservative Government, and thanks to the reforms of the former Education Secretary, that now almost 90% of schools are good or outstanding.
Whenever the Leader of the Opposition attacks me about where I went to school, he is attacking the aspiration of millions of hard-working people in this country. He is attacking people like my parents. This is the country that believes in opportunity, not resentment. He does not understand that, and that is why he is not fit to lead.

Keir Starmer: If the Prime Minister thinks that the route to better education in this country is tax breaks for private schools in the hope that they might hand some of that money down to state schools, that is  laughable. Trickle-down education is nonsense. But it is not just the Levelling Up Secretary; his Education Minister, sitting there, asks, “How much better would it be if Conservatives got rid of these handouts?”
The Prime Minister talks about his record. It is simple: he can carry on being pushed around by the lobbyists, giving away £1.7 billion to private schools every year, or we can put that money to good use, and end the Tory scandal. He talks about his record, while hundreds of thousands of children are leaving school without the qualifications that they need. I have made my choice. What is his?

Rishi Sunak: We are improving school standards for every pupil in this country. It is our reforms that are leading to our marching up the league tables of the programme for international student assessment—PISA—for reading and writing. There are more good and outstanding schools, and there is more investment in every single school. The Leader of the Opposition talks about choice. This is about supporting aspiration, and that is what this Government are proud to do.

Keir Starmer: The Prime Minister really does need to get out more. He talks about aspiration. They are killing off aspiration in this country, and it is not just about education—why is the dream of home ownership far more remote now than it was when his party came to power 12 years ago?

Rishi Sunak: What have we done in those 12 years? We have the highest number of new homes started in 15 years and the largest number of first-time buyers in 20 years. The Leader of the Opposition talked about the Conservative party coming to power 12 years ago. What did we inherit? The lowest level of house building in a century.

Keir Starmer: Would you believe it, Mr Speaker? The simple fact is this: every year, the age at which people can buy their first home goes up. At this rate, under this Government, a child born in the UK today would not be able to buy their first home until they were 45. I love my kids, but I do not want to be cooking them dinner in 30 years’ time. I have heard that the right hon. Gentleman is having a relaunch. Apparently it is called Operation Get Tough, so how tough is he going to get with his Back Benchers who are blocking the new homes this country so badly needs?

Rishi Sunak: We are delivering record numbers of new homes under this Government. That is what we are doing. The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about toughness. He is too weak to stop dozens of his own MPs joining the picket lines. If he wants to support those hard-working families and show some leadership, why does he not confirm right now that no Labour MPs are going to join those picket lines?

Keir Starmer: Whichever way you slice it, it is always the same: whether it is private schools, oil giants or those who do not pay their taxes here, every week the right hon. Gentleman hands out cash to those who do not need it. Every week he gets pushed around, and every week he gets weaker. But I can help him with this one. He does not need to do another grubby deal. If he wants to defeat that amendment from his anti-growth  Back Benchers on national targets for housing, Labour will lend him the votes to do so. Country before party—that is the Labour way. Why doesn’t he try it?

Rishi Sunak: We did hear that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is too weak to confirm there will be no one on the picket lines. It is the same old Labour ideas: more debt, more inflation, more strikes and more migration. He tells his party what it wants to hear. I will take the difficult decisions for this country. That is the choice: it is the politics of yesterday with him, or the future of the country with me.

Fiona Bruce: As hosts of this week’s international Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative conference, the UK again highlighted the need for more action to prevent sexual violence in conflict. Given the heartrending accounts of women in Ukraine being brutalised in this way and the reports that a third of women in conflict zones can be victims, will the Prime Minister champion with me, as his special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, the work being undertaken with young people across the world to stop religion or belief being weaponised, which can later manifest into sexual violence in conflict?

Rishi Sunak: I am incredibly grateful to my hon. Friend for her dedicated work in this area. She is absolutely right to highlight the fact that, this week, the UK hosted the Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative conference. It was an incredible success and I pay tribute to all those involved. As she said, we managed to reach a new political declaration in the conference where over 50 different countries have agreed to put an end to sexual violence in conflict. She deserves praise for all her work in this area.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the leader of the SNP, Ian Blackford.

Ian Blackford: I am sure the whole House will want to join me in sending prayers and condolences to the wife of Doddie Weir, who sadly passed away at the weekend. He was an absolute giant of a man, an inspirational figure in Scottish rugby and someone who raised £8 million for motor neurone disease charities over the past six years. Our thoughts are with Kathy, with Hamish, with Angus and with Ben.
Let me wish everyone a happy St Andrew’s day. Those who know anything about St Andrew will know that he is not just the patron of Scotland; he is celebrated right across Europe. That is why it is such a sad sight to watch this Prime Minister ram through a Bill that would rip up 4,000 pieces of European law—laws that protect workers’ rights, food standards and environmental protections. And it is an even worse sight watching the leader of the Labour party desperately trying to out-Brexit the Prime Minister, ruling out freedom of movement and any hope of a Swiss-style deal. Brexit is now the elephant in the room that neither the Tories nor Labour are willing to confront. When will the Prime Minister finally see reality and admit that Brexit is a significant long-term cause of the UK economic crisis?

Rishi Sunak: I join the right hon. Gentleman in offering our condolences to the family and friends of Doddie Weir, to whom I pay tribute for his campaign to raise awareness of motor neurone disease, which has made a big difference.
Straightforwardly, I was proud to support Brexit, which was the right thing for this country. It allows us, first of all, to get control of our borders, which is incredibly important, and to reduce migration. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the slight dexterity of the Leader of the Opposition on the topic of free movement, and I know he will join me in reminding the Leader of the Opposition of his promise to defend the free movement of people, which is not something we support. We are also seizing the economic opportunities, deregulating and signing trade deals around the world. That is how we will drive growth and prosperity.

Ian Blackford: I thank the Prime Minister for his remarks on Doddie Weir.
Once again, what we are seeing on Brexit is “better together”—we are used to that in Scotland. The problem for both the Prime Minister and the Labour leader when it comes to Brexit is that even their own voters do not agree with them. The latest YouGov poll showed that a record 56% now believe it was wrong to leave the European Union, and the figure is 71% in Scotland. One in five people who voted for Brexit have now changed their mind. More and more people across these islands are wise to the fact that “make Brexit work” is just another stupid slogan. Scotland cannot be stuck with a new “Brexit together” coalition of the Tories and Labour, so on this St Andrew’s day can the Prime Minister finally tell people in Scotland what is the democratic path to escape Westminster control and deliver independence so that we can get back to the European Union?

Rishi Sunak: The right hon. Gentleman talks about democracy and votes. The difference between us is that I respect the result of referendums. Let us remember one thing: we had the fastest vaccine roll-out in the world because of our freedoms after leaving the European Union.

Mark Pawsey: Manufacturing remains a key part of the UK economy, and for the west midlands that means automotive, which is important to my Rugby constituency as we have firms in the supply chain and workers at Jaguar Land Rover. The move to all new cars sold in the UK being electric by 2030 means it is critical that we have a battery manufacturing site. Assembly is already taking place elsewhere in the world where batteries are made, so will the Prime Minister support the bid for a gigafactory in Coventry?

Rishi Sunak: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his efforts to progress this project. We are fully committed to securing investment to grow our electric vehicle supply chain. Although he will know I cannot comment on individual commercial negotiations, we announced £350 million of funding for the automotive transformation fund in the net zero strategy to support the development of that supply chain, and I wish him every success in his bid.

Colum Eastwood: Yesterday, BBC Northern Ireland announced cuts to programming and jobs at BBC Radio Foyle, which in my view will leave the station totally unsustainable. The BBC charter places an obligation on the BBC to allow audiences to engage fully on local issues. This decision is a very clear breach  of that obligation, leaving licence fee payers outside the Greater Belfast area without proper local programming. Will the Prime Minister act to defend this very important local public broadcasting service?

Rishi Sunak: I believe very strongly in local public broadcasting, and indeed the Government have taken steps to support local media. I will be happy to look at the specific issue the hon. Gentleman raises, and to bring it up with the BBC when I next see them.

Angela Richardson: The people of Guildford tell me they want women and girls to feel safe, and I am delighted to have had some success in getting lights turned back on, including on Yorkie’s bridge on behalf of concerned students at the University of Surrey. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, even in difficult times, we cannot take a single step back from the brilliant work that this Conservative Government are doing to tackle violence against women and girls?

Rishi Sunak: Like my hon. Friend, the Government are committed to tackling violence against women and girls, and to making our streets safer. We created the safer streets fund, which funds additional patrols, extra lighting and more CCTV. The StreetSafe online tool allows users, including those in her constituency, to pinpoint locations where they feel unsafe so that local police can take appropriate action. I will continue to support her in her efforts.

Abena Oppong-Asare: Two 16-year-old boys, Charlie Bartolo and Kearne Solanke, were tragically killed in my constituency this weekend, and my heart goes out to the families and friends left behind. We really need to come together across the House to address and tackle serious youth violence, so may I ask the Prime Minister what he is doing to address the knife crime epidemic?

Rishi Sunak: I thank the hon. Lady for her question and join her in expressing condolences to the family and friends of the two boys; I also read about it and it is an awful tragedy. She rightly asks what we are doing to make our streets safer and stamp out the scourge of knife crime. We are boosting the number of police officers; as she will know, with 15,000, on our way to 20,000. We are also giving them the powers they need to get knives off our streets, including by lifting restrictions on stop and search, and introducing new court orders to target known knife offenders. I agree with her that this is something we need to do more on, and she should know that the Government will be fully committed to tackling it.

Gordon Henderson: When will my right hon. Friend’s Government bring forward any emergency legislation that is needed to deport those migrants who came across the channel illegally in small boats and are now being put up in hotels paid for by hard-pressed British taxpayers?

Rishi Sunak: We are determined to do whatever it takes to break the business model of the people smugglers, who are causing the needless loss of life of   people in the channel and putting unsustainable pressure on our asylum system. Our Nationality and Borders Act 2022, opposed by the Labour party, gives us new powers, which we fully intend to use. We will take further measures as required to properly control our borders and reduce the number of illegal crossings.

Andy McDonald: It was sad to see in a video from his Oxford days the future Prime Minister saying that he hadn’t a single friend who was working class. He is not likely to make any soon, because while he sits on a personal fortune he is refusing the reasonable demands of nurses, railway workers and many others who are forced to take industrial action just to make ends meet. Why doesn’t he give them the wage increase they need and fund it by making the rich pay the same rate on unearned income as workers have to pay for their hard graft? While he is at it, why not scrap the non-dom tax loophole that he is all too familiar with, which is costing the public £3.2 billion?

Rishi Sunak: I have nothing but admiration and gratitude for our nurses for all the work they do, but it is simply unreasonable and unaffordable to have a 19% pay rise. If that is what the hon. Gentleman thinks is reasonable, I am sure the Labour party can explain to us how it would pay for that and the impact it would have on inflation. If he really wants to support working people, maybe he should get off the picket line and end the strikes.

Esther McVey: The train service between Wilmslow in my constituency and London was always hourly, direct and took one hour and 50 minutes. Now, we would be very lucky if we got a direct train and the journey time is often double that. And that is not restricted to strike days; it is day in, day out on Avanti trains. Will the Prime Minister tell my constituents what the Government are going to do to sort this out and get the west coast service back to what it used to be, because the service at the moment is completely unacceptable?

Rishi Sunak: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about the unacceptable deterioration in the quality of Avanti’s service. The Transport Secretary is rightly monitoring it and holding Avanti to account. There is a plan to increase the number of trains—with the 100 additional drivers—and restore the full direct service between Manchester and London. But what this plan needs—and I hope the Labour party supports it—is trade union co-operation.

Munira Wilson: I am sure that Conservative Members felt a sense of déjà vu watching the Welsh defence during last night’s match—after all, they know what it feels like to have Marcus Rashford run rings around them. Off the pitch, Marcus Rashford has been a tireless campaigner on child hunger, in the face of fierce Conservative opposition. Given that Marcus Rashford delivered on the pitch last night, will the Prime Minister give him the best thanks possible by delivering free school meals for every child living in poverty?

Rishi Sunak: We are supporting almost 2 million children with free school meals. We also, last year, invested hundreds of millions of pounds in the new   holiday activities and food programme, which is broadening that support through the holidays for those kids who need it, on top of our work to roll out breakfast clubs across the country.

Flick Drummond: The pandemic has played havoc with school attendance and the Children’s Commissioner says that almost 115,000 children are now being home-educated, which is 34% higher than before the pandemic, with little if any monitoring of their educational welfare. Even worse, nine in 10 local authorities believe that they have not been able to identify home-educated children. Will my right hon. Friend bring forward the register of home-schooled children so that they are identified and we can ensure that their needs are looked after and they are not falling through the net?

Rishi Sunak: We support the right of parents to home-educate their children and we know that many do well. However, that is not the case for all, which is why local authorities must seek to identify those children missing education. We have published guidance on the arrangements that they should be following and, indeed, ensured that they have oversight of elective home education.

Catherine West: After record payouts to shareholders last year, the Royal Mail recently—this year—announced huge half-year losses and plans to cut 10,000 jobs, while threatening the cherished universal service obligation that guarantees a minimum six-days-a-week letter delivery service, in the tradition of the Penny Black from 1840. Why have the Government not yet committed to investigating the cack-handed mismanagement of this iconic British service and to protecting its future and loyal postal workers?

Rishi Sunak: Again, I have nothing but gratitude and appreciation for the hard work of our postal workers, but it is not the right approach to go on strike, and especially to demand pay, as we have heard, that is simply unaffordable for hard-working British taxpayers. The hon. Lady would do well to see that. In the context that we are in, it is simply not possible to give people the type of pay demands that they are making.

Andrew Percy: Due to the unique geography of Brigg and Goole and the Isle of Axholme, we are one of the most flood-prone areas of the country. Although I welcome the record £5.4 billion of flood defence money, may I ask the Prime Minister, ahead of next year’s Budget, to look at easing the rules around how that money is spent, so that more of it can be spent on maintenance, which is so important to keeping my constituents dry?

Rishi Sunak: I am very happy to look at that for my hon. Friend. He is right to highlight the doubling of the investment that the Government have put into flood defences, but it is right that we get the mix right. I will take that matter away with me.

Colleen Fletcher: The West Midlands Police chief constable has revealed that a vulnerable child was forced to spend two days living in a police station during a mental health  crisis because the right specialist help could not be found for them. I know that more and more young people are unable to access appropriate mental health support. Will the Prime Minister accept Labour’s plans to scrap private school charitable status and use the money to fund a mental health professional in every school?

Rishi Sunak: We have already committed to offer all state schools a grant to train a senior mental health lead by the end of this Parliament. Already six out of 10 are doing so. There is funding for all of them to have it. In addition, we are increasing the support that we give to those with eating disorders, because the hon. Lady is right: mental health does affect young people. This Government are backing those people to get the support that they need.

Paul Bristow: The number of people crossing the channel is a national emergency. The number of migrants in hotels is a national emergency. Is it not time that we had a Cobra-style Committee, involving the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, and the Home Office and led by No.10, to tackle this crisis?

Rishi Sunak: I share my hon. Friend’s frustration and I want to reassure him that we will do whatever it takes to reduce the number of illegal crossings to this country and take any new powers that we need to. I look forward to working with him to ensure we can do that, because this is fundamentally about our sovereignty and the proper control of our borders. While the Labour party has tried to oppose every measure we have taken, we will keep going, because we need to ensure that we stop the crossings.

Kirsten Oswald: Last week the UK Government’s Regulatory Policy Committee stated that the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill is “not fit for purpose”. The Institute of Directors, the TUC and countless others have urged the Government to scrap the Bill. Businesses across Scotland have already suffered severe economic damage under this Tory Brexit agenda, and they now see the outlook clouded with even more complexity and uncertainty. If the Prime Minister is serious about protecting the economy and looking after small and medium-sized enterprises, why not do the right thing and scrap this disastrous, ideological Bill now?

Rishi Sunak: Taking advantage of our freedoms is going to drive growth, jobs and prosperity in the UK, whether in life sciences, in reducing the burdens on data for those SMEs or in the financial services industry in Scotland. That is how we are going to create prosperity across this nation and that is why we are going to get on and deregulate post Brexit.

Paul Holmes: My right hon. Friend and the Chancellor have rightly pointed out that levelling up is for the whole of the United Kingdom. As a Southampton man, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will know that, since the 1970s, Eastleigh has been promised a much-needed Chickenhall Lane bypass. Will he agree to meet me and Hampshire County Council to finally get the project moving?

Rishi Sunak: It is right that we spread opportunity across the country, including in Eastleigh and the south. I understand that it is for Hampshire County Council to bring forward the proposal for the bypass, which I hope it will do at the next funding opportunity, and  I will ensure that my hon. Friend and the council have a meeting with a Transport Minister as soon as possible.

Alan Brown: Tory ideology has blocked onshore wind development in Scotland for years. The Peterhead carbon capture cluster has lost out on funding twice and is still only classed as a reserve. Pump storage hydro schemes  have been blocked because the UK Government will not discuss a pricing mechanism. If the Prime Minister actually cares about net zero and Scottish jobs, will he at least take action to advance Peterhead carbon capture and storage and pump storage hydro in Scotland?

Rishi Sunak: Not only are we supporting in this country carbon capture and storage, hydrogen and offshore wind—all new technologies that will help us to get to net zero and will create jobs in Scotland—but we are supporting our transition. That is good for the Scottish economy and good for Scottish jobs, and something the SNP would do well to support.

Independent Adviser on  Ministerial Interests

Angela Rayner: (Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will provide an update on the appointment of an independent adviser on ministerial interests and enforcement of the ministerial code.

Alex Burghart: The Government welcome the opportunity to stress again the importance of the role of the independent adviser and this Government’s commitment to it. The Prime Minister has been very clear that the appointment of a new independent adviser is a priority and that the appointment process is under way. Hon. Members will understand that an appointment of this nature is significant and has to be done well. Much as hon. Members might wish me to, it would not be appropriate for me to comment further on specifics of what is an ongoing appointments process. Let me assure hon. Members: the adjudication of issues of ministerial conduct does not stop because the independent adviser is not yet in post. Conduct matters and conduct issues will be dealt with quickly and appropriately, irrespective of that appointment process.
That is what hon. Members will have seen with regard to complaints made against the Deputy Prime Minister. On receipt of formal complaints by the Cabinet Office, the Prime Minister requested that an independent investigation be conducted by an individual from outside Government, and Adam Tolley KC has been appointed to conduct the investigation. The terms of reference have now been published. The process is under way, and Mr Tolley will provide his report to the PM in due course. It is right that these matters are investigated fully, but it would not be right to comment further on them when that process is ongoing.
I would also like to reassure hon. Members that the process of managing the interests of Ministers continues in the absence of an independent adviser. The permanent secretary, as the policy expert on each Department’s remit, leads the process in their Department in the absence of an independent adviser. The Cabinet Office is able to provide advice in line with precedent. All relevant interests are declared by Ministers upon taking office and are kept up to date at all times. The publication of the list of Ministers’ interests is the end point of the ministerial interests process, and it takes place at regular intervals to make the public aware of the relevant interests of Ministers.
I will end by reiterating that as soon as there is an update on the process to appoint an independent adviser on Ministers’ interests, the Government will update the House.

Angela Rayner: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question.
How many times have I heard, “Soon; jam tomorrow; mañana, mañana”? We need the Prime Minister, who promised to appoint an independent ethics adviser as one of his first acts, to actually deal with this issue. Yet despite Ministers being accused of bullying and intimidation, or being reappointed despite security breaches, there is still no adviser. It is clear that ethics and integrity are not a priority for the Government, despite the Prime Minister’s words.
We are told that recruitment is under way, but apparently no one will accept this poisoned chalice. So can the Minister tell us how many candidates have been approached and how many have refused the job? Will the Prime Minister follow his disgraced predecessors by denying the so-called independent adviser the power to launch their own investigations? Or does he have no plan to restore standards? Will he just preserve the rotten regime that he inherited?
What on earth is the system in the meantime? Who will investigate the allegations of Islamophobia made by one serving Minister against another? The Minister mentioned the Deputy Prime Minister, who had to demand an investigation into himself because the Prime Minister was too weak to do so. How many formal complaints have now been made? The Minister mentions Adam Tolley. Why is he not allowed to proactively investigate the so-called informal complaints? Will he investigate allegations made by the former permanent secretary? And who will finally get to the bottom of the dangerous use of private emails by Ministers?
No. 10 said in reference to the Home Secretary that it could not investigate breaches under previous Administrations. But that is what is happening now with the Deputy Prime Minister, so why not? Why now is there an excuse for refusing to investigate the Home Secretary’s breach? Will the Prime Minister appoint a truly independent watchdog?

Alex Burghart: It is wonderful to hear the right hon. Lady’s interest in this matter today. As it happens, we had a debate on this very issue in Westminster Hall yesterday. The House will be shocked to hear—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I am here, Minister, not over there—and I hate to say it, but there is nobody even standing on that side.

Alex Burghart: Thank you for the reminder, Mr Speaker.
The House will be shocked to hear that the right hon. Lady was not present at that Westminster Hall debate—[Interruption.] Because it was about the ministerial code, which is the subject of the urgent question. The right hon. Lady and her hon. Friends did not bother to show up, and they missed the opportunity to hear the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) speak very pertinently on this subject. Not only was the right hon. Lady not there, but her Front-Bench colleagues did not turn up to ask questions, either.
The right hon. Lady refers to rumours in the press, but let us look at the facts. The Prime Minister has been in office for 31 days.[Official Report, 12 December 2022, Vol. 724, c. 5MC.] On his first day, he said he would make an appointment. He has made repeated assurances in this place and other places, as have members of the Cabinet, and that has continued in yesterday’s debate, at Prime Minister’s questions and for this urgent question.
The right hon. Lady talks about the powers of the independent adviser, but I remind her that in May this year, Lord Geidt said that we had come up with “a workable scheme”. I have to say that it is starting to sound very much like the Opposition cannot take yes for an answer. We are going to have an independent adviser who will have the powers they need. They are going to be appointed very soon.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Scottish National party spokesperson.

Stewart Hosie: When the Government published their policy paper on revisions to the ministerial code on 27 May, it said that there would be “an enhanced process” for the initiation of investigations under the ministerial code, that the independent adviser could initiate his or her own investigations, that there would be a more specific reference to the adviser in the ministerial code, and that there would be a duty on Ministers to provide all the information necessary to allow the adviser to discharge his or her duties. However, it turns out that the Prime Minister is not offering potential candidates any enhanced powers, meaning that advisers will not be able to launch their own investigations, and that confirms the blocking of the expansion of powers by his predecessor. So it is a simple question: why are the Government reneging on their own policy statement of May this year, making it more difficult to appoint an independent adviser?

Alex Burghart: I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave a few moments ago. He seems terribly well informed, but he seems to have stopped short of reading Lord Geidt’s response to the changes in the terms of reference, where he said that
“this would be a workable scheme”.

Kevan Jones: I hear what the Minister says, but can he give any timescale of when the appointment will be made? In the meantime, can I ask specifically what advice is being given to Ministers and, more importantly, their special advisers on the use of private email and WhatsApp groups?

Alex Burghart: As I have said, there is a process ongoing to appoint an independent adviser as fast as possible. The Prime Minister has been in post for 31 days, and there is standing advice on the use of WhatsApp and private messaging.[Official Report, 12 December 2022, Vol. 724, c. 6MC.]

Dawn Butler: Can the Minister confirm whether the fee paid to Adam Tolley KC to investigate the claims he mentioned earlier is greater than the projected annual cost of an ethics adviser?

Alex Burghart: I do not know the answer to that question. I am happy to write to the hon. Lady to answer.

Christine Jardine: Notwith-standing the Minister’s earlier comments, we have been waiting for five months now for an ethics adviser. Every time the Government fail to appoint one, it further undermines and corrodes this place’s reputation in the public mind. I have tabled a Bill that would give Parliament the power to appoint an ethics adviser if the Government fail to do so. Given the Government’s inability to appoint an ethics adviser, will the Minister now please support that Bill and allow us to get on with re-establishing the good reputation of this place?

Alex Burghart: The hon. Lady will have heard me point out that the Prime Minister, who has said he will appoint an independent adviser, has only been in post for 31 days and that a process is going on at speed. In answer to her other question, it is very much the view of this Government that it is the Prime Minister who appoints the independent adviser to give advice to the Prime Minister, who answers ultimately to Parliament.[Official Report, 12 December 2022, Vol. 724, c. 6MC.]

Andrew Jones: Since I became an MP in 2010, we have seen seven current or former Labour MPs, two Conservatives, one Liberal Democrat and one Scottish Nationalist given custodial sentences. We have countless other cases that come before the House, and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has spoken eloquently about this previously. We have a by-election tomorrow caused by a Labour MP standing down in disgrace, so there is a big issue to solve with standards in our public life, and it goes right across this House. I am therefore pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister has been able to update the House on the recruitment process that is under way. Does he agree that backing a stronger code of conduct for Members of Parliament is proof that the Government are taking the code of conduct in this place seriously?

Alex Burghart: It is very good to hear from my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right. This Government take the code of conduct for Members extremely seriously.

Afzal Khan: In the absence of an ethics adviser, can the Minister inform the House of the status of the inquiry into Islamophobia that was ordered in January this year?

Alex Burghart: I know that the next independent adviser will want to take that case extremely seriously.

Ronnie Cowan: It is important to point out that the Prime Minister appoints his own ethics adviser. He then determines which investigations can be undertaken, and then he determines what actions are taken depending on the outcome. Is that maybe why the last two ethics advisers have resigned?

Alex Burghart: The hon. Gentleman will have heard me say several times, in reference to whether an independent adviser can initiate proceedings, that Lord Geidt was happy with the proposals made in May; he said that it would be a workable scheme.

Karin Smyth: This is a really serious issue that undermines confidence in the ethics of this place and the Government. Lord Geidt gave evidence to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and resigned two days later, following our questioning. That needs to be taken seriously. We are still very concerned about this issue, the appointment process—Lord Geidt was alighted upon—and the remit. If the Minister does not want to discuss the process in public, will he commit to meeting the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee in private, if there is no movement on this issue in the next couple of weeks?

Alex Burghart: I am confident that an independent adviser will be appointed very soon, so I am not sure that there will be a need for such a meeting.

Clive Efford: Is it not in the best interests of ethics for the ethics adviser to be completely independent of the Prime Minister?

Alex Burghart: They are an independent adviser appointed by the Prime Minister because, ultimately, in our system, the Prime Minister has ultimate responsibility.

Rachel Hopkins: The ethics adviser is required to publish an annual report that sets out their work so the public can see it, alongside a list of ministerial interests twice per year, which sets out the relevant private interests of all Ministers. Can the Minister inform us whether we can expect a report this year and, if so, who is drafting it?

Alex Burghart: An independent adviser will be appointed in the very near future. It will be at the very top of their list, I am sure, to get the ministerial interests published.

Wendy Chamberlain: I was at the debate secured by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) yesterday, where he rightly pointed out the difference between the Members’ code of conduct and register and what Ministers have. To reiterate what the hon. Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) said, the last printing of the ministerial register was at the end of May; today is 30 November. To be kind to the Government, that is six months today, so surely it is not unreasonable to expect that standards list to come as soon as possible.

Alex Burghart: I have to give credit to the hon. Lady, because she was at the debate yesterday, unlike many of the Labour Members present. She will have heard me say then, as I have just said again, that we will have an independent adviser very soon and they will be expected to prioritise the publication of the ministerial interests.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his responses. There are concerns that there is currently no ethics adviser to the PM. The post has been vacant for six months, so there is urgency. Can the Minister confirm that the independent adviser will be appointed and the timescale for that to happen, so that Ministers can refer to that adviser for the guidance, assistance and advice that they need?

Alex Burghart: It is always a pleasure to answer questions from the hon. Gentleman. He will have heard me say that we are in the process of appointing an independent adviser at speed, and they will be able to deal with all relevant issues once they are appointed.

Energy Bills Support Scheme:  Northern Ireland

Carla Lockhart: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy if he will make a statement on the energy bill support scheme payment for Northern Ireland.

Graham Stuart: I thank the hon. Lady for her question. The Northern Ireland energy bills support scheme will provide £400 to households in Northern Ireland this winter. In addition, it has been decided that the alternative fuel payment of £200 will, unlike in Great Britain, be paid to every household in Northern Ireland because of the high preponderance of the use of heating oil in particular. On top of that, support is already being provided to households in Northern Ireland through the energy price guarantee, which brings an automatic reduction in bills.
Energy is devolved, so this scheme should have been administered by the Executive in Northern Ireland. In Great Britain, my Department has been working since February to deal with this very complex and challenging task. We do not live in a society with a centralised database, so standing up the support has proved extremely challenging. It was not until August that the Executive asked the Government and therefore my Department to take on responsibility for it, which is one reason why we have been behind.
There is also a different system and a different regulator. As energy is a devolved matter, the Department was not used to working with the system on a day-to-day basis. Since then, we have identified that we needed powers that we lacked in the Northern Ireland context and we were able to seek those powers through emergency legislation—the Energy Prices Act 2022. We then sought to find the right route to get through to consumers in Northern Ireland.
We found that working through suppliers, because of their established relationships, is the best way—if not the only way—realistically and in a reasonable timeframe to reach consumers in Northern Ireland. By using those systems, we hope to expedite delivery, but there is a different set of suppliers from Great Britain and they have their own processes that need to be adapted to deliver the support. Detailed work is under way to establish how suppliers can use their systems to pass funds to consumers in a way that will meet consumer needs and ensure that public money is properly protected. That is where the biggest issue has come about.
I would like to see the AFP and the EBSS added together so that a £600 payment can go to households in Northern Ireland, and I would like it to be available for them to use this winter to meet their heating oil bills and the cost of living crisis. I do not want them to have stranded electricity credit that they may not use up until the following winter. That has been the crux of the challenge when dealing with suppliers and that is what we are working on to make sure—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I call Carla Lockhart.

Carla Lockhart: I sincerely thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question, which I have asked on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland, for whom the cost of living crisis is biting as much as in other parts of our United Kingdom. Across GB, households have received their energy bills support payment, but my constituents, and people across Northern Ireland, have not. That £400 has been dangled in front of them but remains beyond their grasp. The promise of an additional £200 in recognition of our dependence on heating oil also remains unpaid.
The previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), assured the people of Northern Ireland that the payment would be issued in November. Today, November draws to a close, but there has been no payment. Hard-pressed families budgeting for the additional pressures of Christmas factored the Government’s promise into their budgeting. What has the Minister to say to them?
As temperatures have plummeted over recent days, people in Northern Ireland are waking up to frost on their cars outside, but inside their homes, some people can even see their breath because they are unable to turn their heating on. They need this payment, yet what we get from the Government is delay, doubt and differing stories as to the type of scheme as each day passes. It is not good enough. We need a firm commitment from the Government that the payment will be issued before Christmas. We know it can be done. We saw through covid that where there is a will, the Government can overcome technicalities quickly to deliver support.
The UK Government have been centrally delivering the scheme for England, Scotland and Wales. They say that the budget is there to issue it for Northern Ireland, and the energy companies say that they are ready to administer it, so can the Minister clarify the exact form that the payment will take and when it will come? Furthermore, will changing the model by which the scheme is delivered, as indicated yesterday, create a further delay? I implore the Minister: let there be no more delay. He should make the payment and honour the commitments given to the people of Northern Ireland.

Graham Stuart: As I said, energy is devolved. I understand why the hon. Lady’s party is not part of the Executive, but that has consequences. It meant that we did not start until August. We should not be doing this; the Executive in Northern Ireland should be doing it—that is the truth.
I met chief executive officers of the energy suppliers last week. Whatever the hon. Lady may have heard, they are not ready. Their systems do not allow for the dispensing and cashing out. I hope that she agrees about not wanting to see people unable to access stranded credit in their electricity account. I have insisted that we find a way to make sure that people can cash that out and use it to meet their heating oil bills this winter.
We had a roundtable on Monday with my officials and those suppliers, and another yesterday. I am receiving daily updates and I am determined to find a way to ensure that we can allow cashing out this winter. In answer to the hon. Lady’s question, however, given the late handing over from the Executive to us and the situation with suppliers, I do not see that we will be able to stand that up before Christmas. We are aiming to  stand it up in January, if we possibly can. That is my aspiration and my aim, and that is what I am seeking to achieve.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Kerry McCarthy: I congratulate the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) on being granted this urgent question. I will put on record some statistics from the Northern Ireland Consumer Council to give some context to what we are talking about. Some 44% of households in Northern Ireland have no savings compared with the UK average of 16%. Households in Northern Ireland are the most vulnerable in our country to the cost of living crisis, with a weekly discretionary spend of £93 compared with the UK average of £204.
Even with the Government’s measures, the University of York estimates that more than 10 million families will be in fuel poverty. Under the new Government’s plans, bills will rise by £900 to £3,000 on average from April. That would mean that 18 million households were in fuel poverty across the UK, with Northern Ireland hit among the hardest. To make matters worse, two thirds of households in Northern Ireland use heating oil, so are not supported by the energy price guarantee.
Providing support for households in Northern Ireland should have been a priority as they will be hit harder by the rise in energy bills. Instead, the Government seem to have forgotten them. The energy market is complicated but the Government have been aware of these issues for six months. In May, the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke), wrote in the Belfast News Letter to promise that the Government were
“urgently working to ensure that the people of NI receive the equivalent of this”—
energy bill support—
“as soon as possible.”
There has been little sign, however, that the Government have been working on the issue at all since then.
A taskforce was set up in August, but has met only twice. The former Prime Minister, during her very short tenure, told the people in Northern Ireland that payment would be delivered in November—today is 30 November. It is not good enough to let the issue drift. The Northern Ireland utility regulator said in August that he believed there was a simple mechanism to get the money out and he had been left frustrated that the Government had not taken it forward. Can the Minister explain why the option put forward by the Northern Ireland utility regulator has not been taken forward? How much longer will people in Northern Ireland have to wait for this support?

Graham Stuart: We are acutely aware of the situation facing households in Northern Ireland. Of course, what they most need is good government in Northern Ireland for and by the people of Northern Ireland. It is the failure to have that Executive in this devolved area of responsibility that is at the heart of the issue. Any statements in May were about getting the Executive to do their job and deliver for the people of Northern Ireland. Looking forward, the people of Northern Ireland need a period of good government and future  prosperity. The regulator does not have the means and certainly has not offered to facilitate the payment to consumers.
I assure the House that whatever people may have heard from suppliers, when I met CEOs last week, they told me that they needed more time and that they did not have the systems to do cashing out. I told them that that was not acceptable, which is why I am holding them to account on a daily basis and making sure that we push so that we can get this support out as early in the new year as possible. Northern Ireland families deserve better than what they have now.

Sammy Wilson: I know the Minister will try to pass the blame on to the non-operation of the Executive, but he has known for some time that while electricity transmission may be a devolved issue, this is a national policy issue that can be dealt with nationally.
Let us look at the excuses the Minister has made today. He said we do not have the data. The data was available and has been available, and he knows it has been available, from the four electricity companies for some time. He said he does not have the powers. He has had the powers for some time: the legislation has gone through this House. He said there are different suppliers in Northern Ireland. There are only four suppliers in Northern Ireland, as opposed to a multiplicity of suppliers in the rest of the UK. With a complicated system in Great Britain, the powers that are available, the assurances from the regulator and the assurances from the electricity companies, how come he still cannot get the money out?

Graham Stuart: I am surprised the right hon. Gentleman is not aware that there are more than four energy suppliers in Northern Ireland, so the situation is not exactly as he gives it. I have fully explained exactly what we are doing. As I say, I am updated on a daily basis to make sure that we have a system that will allow families to get hold of the money. It is hardly passing blame to suggest that a devolved area of responsibility should be fulfilled in the area to which such devolution has occurred.

Karin Smyth: This really is an unsightly spectacle. The UK Government are blaming the people of Northern Ireland for the political choices they have made and the collapse of devolution, rather than taking responsibility for this. The Minister is really struggling with this brief and with getting this money out to families, and understanding the difference with Northern Ireland and having to deal with the consequences is going to happen across all sectors of the UK Government. What are they doing to support Ministers across all briefs to understand the different situation in Northern Ireland, so that they can support the people of Northern Ireland across all Departments?

Graham Stuart: In so far as I understood the hon. Lady’s question, this is complicated and we are working flat out—my officials are working flat out, and I would like to thank them for their support—to overcome this and make sure that families get the support they deserve this winter.

Claire Hanna: Despite this scheme having been announced in May, we will hit December tomorrow without households being supported.  As far back as the spring, my party was proposing a taskforce to address a cost of living crisis that was clear to anybody actually focused on the needs of households in Northern Ireland. We have put forward solutions including a home heating oil subsidy and one based on the voucher scheme rolled out last year. We have always known that people cannot eat a flag, and it is very clear that they cannot heat their home with one either. Is not the hard truth that this is a casualty of ransom politics, and that hard-pressed families—whether Unionist, nationalist, or neither—are paying the price of the decisions of one party, the DUP? Will the UK Government please now step in and ensure that there is not a collective punishment for people the vast majority of whom want to see good government, to move forward and to be able to look after their family this Christmas?

Graham Stuart: I thank the hon. Lady for her question, and we are doing everything we can to support consumers and households in Northern Ireland—for instance, with the energy price guarantee. In fact, rather than the £2,500 average annualised bill this winter in GB, it comes in at about £2,200 in Northern Ireland, and we have sought every step of the way to make sure that we recognise the unique circumstances in Northern Ireland. [Official Report, 5 December 2022, Vol. 724, c. 2MC.] As I say, it is my aspiration to see, if at all possible, that the alternative fuel payment and the EBSS payment can be made, so £600 should reach families in Northern Ireland before the close of winter—in fact, they should receive it in total ahead of those in GB.

Gavin Robinson: Does the Minister accept that, while he is now asking the companies to provide a cash-out facility, they offered Government a process that would allow cash-out in June and July of this year? The Government emphatically said, “No. That is not occurring in GB, and it is not to occur in Northern Ireland”. All the companies were ready to distribute and disburse this money in November, alongside the Government’s plan for doing so, and it is only in the last week that he has asked for a new scheme to allow cash-out, which is moving the goalposts. When he talks about an aspiration for January, will he confirm that 17 January is the date he has in mind?

Graham Stuart: I cannot confirm a specific date in January, and I do not recognise what the hon. Gentleman says was offered by suppliers in June and July, but I will write to him and follow up on that to put it on record, at least for him and me.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his responses. The Government have been discussing energy support for Northern Ireland for some months now. Northern Ireland residents have been aware of the £600 energy payment, which my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) referred to, yet no payment has been made. Concerns have been raised by those who have prepayment meters, and the three companies I have spoken to—SSE, Budget Energy and Northern Ireland Electricity—have stated that they have experienced difficulties or have been reluctant to sign up to the scheme. Can the Minister advise us of how these problems are being addressed, and—with respect, Minister—can we have a timescale so we can tell our constituents when the money will be delivered?

Graham Stuart: Nothing would give me greater pleasure than giving the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have particular affection and respect, an absolutely tight schedule. What I do not want to do is give a date that I cannot have certainty of delivering. This is working through the suppliers, and we are looking to see a scheme.
The hon. Gentleman raises the issue of prepayment meters. It is administratively burdensome if we credit funds on to such a meter and then wish to remove those funds from it. I am told by the suppliers that that could lead, for instance, to the falling over of their call centres, which are not set up for that. We are looking to find workarounds for that to ensure that households in Northern Ireland get the funding, and it is my ambition to see them receive the full quantum—as I say, that will include the £200 for every single household in Northern Ireland, as opposed to GB—ahead of the completion of the EBSS payments in Great Britain.

Prison Capacity

Lindsay Hoyle: Before we come to the statement, I want to make the point that it is not acceptable for either the Opposition or me to get a copy of a statement at 12.59 pm. I have to say that this is not the first time, and it seems to be a continual problem for the Government in that somehow they do not like to be held accountable. Not providing a statement in advance means that the Opposition cannot take the measures that are needed to hold the Government accountable. It is not acceptable, and I say to the Whips and those on the Front Bench that you should get your act together, because you cannot carry on taking the House for granted in this manner. It will not happen, and it is time Ministers were more accountable.

Damian Hinds: Thank you, Mr Speaker. May I open with a sincere apology for what you have just referred to? With the way timings have worked out today, we got this wrong, and I apologise for it. I assure you and the Opposition that it was not deliberate. I appreciate that that does not help with the practicalities of this, but I want to assure you and the Opposition that this was not a deliberate move on our part.
The first responsibility of Government is to keep people safe. That means taking dangerous criminals off the streets, and to do that we must always ensure that we have sufficient prison places available to serve the courts. This Government have been decisive in our tough approach to crime. We are well on our way to the recruitment of 20,000 additional police officers. We have legislated to introduce tougher sentences for the most serious crimes, with rape prosecutions having increased by 3% between the year ending June 2021 and now, and by 49% since 2019, and we are committed to driving down the backlog of outstanding court cases following the pandemic.
We have long anticipated the prison population rising as a result of those measures, and that is why we are delivering the largest prison building programme since the Victorian era, with 20,000 additional places. We have already created over 3,100 of them, including the recent change of use of His Majesty’s Prison Morton Hall and our brand-new prison, HMP Five Wells. A further 1,700 places are due to come online with occupation in tranches from next spring with the opening of HMP Fosse Way. This is in addition to the thousands of further places that will become available through additional house blocks—for example at HMP Stocken, which is due to finish construction next year—and major refurbishment programmes across the existing estate. Just a few weeks ago, I attended a ground breaking ceremony at the site beside HMP Full Sutton in Yorkshire, where we have started construction for the next new prison, which will hold 1,500 category C prisoners when it opens in 2025.
However, in recent months we have experienced an acute and sudden increase in the prison population, in part due to the aftermath of the Criminal Bar Association strike action over the summer, which led to a significantly higher numbers of offenders on remand. With court hearings resuming, a surge in offenders is coming through the criminal justice system, placing capacity pressure on adult male prisons in particular.
The public rightly expect us to take the action necessary to hold offenders who have been sentenced by the courts. That is why I am announcing today that we have written to the National Police Chiefs’ Council to request the temporary use of up to 400 police cells, through an established protocol known as Operation Safeguard. That will provide the immediate additional capacity we need in the coming weeks to ensure the smooth running of the prison estate, and to continue taking dangerous criminals off the streets. I thank the National Police Chiefs’ Council for its support in mobilising this operation. We already routinely work hand in glove with police forces across the country to occasionally use police cells to hold offenders overnight. The triggering of Operation Safeguard is not an unprecedented move. It is an established procedure that has been used before to ensure that our prison system can operate effectively and safely during periods of high demand. It last happened in 2006, and then in 2007 to 2008.
With the expected increase in offenders coming into the estate over the coming weeks, it is right that we give police forces as much notice as possible of the short-term need to use their cells, so that together we can safely and adequately ensure availability of the spaces needed. The activation of Operation Safeguard will ensure that His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service and police forces can jointly plan how and where those places will be accessed. We are working with prison governors across the estate to ensure that we safely maximise the places available within our prisons. This plan, alongside our existing plan to provide 20,000 modern places, will ensure that we have enough places to cut crime and keep the public safe.
The capacity pressure is specific to the adult male estate, and there is ample capacity in the women’s and youth estates. We have delivered on our commitments to reduce the number of young people and women in our prisons, helping us to tackle the drivers of crime by focusing on rehabilitation. The Government are working to drive down reoffending, and we are investing £200 million a year by 2024-25 to get prison leavers into skills training, work and stable accommodation. We are investing to make prisons safer and more secure, rolling out almost 7,900 next-generation body-worn video cameras to 56 prisons. In March we completed our £100 million security investment programme to fight crime in prisons, including tackling the smuggling of illicit items such as drugs and mobile phones.
In conclusion, I thank the police for their support and pay tribute to the frontline prison staff and police officers who work tirelessly every day to keep the public safe. Taken together with our programme to expand the prison estate, I have every confidence that the commencement of these measures will ensure that we continue to deliver justice, protect the public and reduce reoffending, as the public would rightly expect, and I commend this statement to the House.

Ellie Reeves: It was disappointing to have only five minutes’ advance notice of the statement today.
This is yet another crisis created by this shambolic Tory Government, and it is hard to think of a more damning indictment of their failure on law and order  than the fact that they have now run out of cells in which to lock up criminals. That is hardly surprising when, under the Tories, 10,000 prison places have been lost. Not only that, but 663 police stations have closed. Who knows how long it will be until this contingency plan needs a contingency plan all of its own?
While we find ourselves with not enough cells, in response to a recent parliamentary question we discovered that over the past five years the Tories have spent more than £1 million on maintaining closed prisons—more evidence that we can no longer afford the cost of the Conservatives. Our prisons are already failing in so many areas—almost every inspectorate report tells us that. Just last week Exeter prison was given an urgent notification, with crumbling estates, dangerous staff shortages, prisoner on prisoner violence, and rehabilitation all but non-existent. Ultimately, the public pay the price and they are being kept less safe.
But that is just part of the story of this Government letting the public down, with burglars and rapists being left to roam our streets, criminals let off, and victims let down. Our communities are now less safe and secure, and people across the country are scared. Women are tired of walking down the street at night with keys between their hands. Pensioners are tired of their homes being broken into. Hard-working people are tired of being hit with fraud.
It did not have to come to this. This prisons crisis is a crisis made in Downing Street, and the result of 12 years of Tory failure. This has not happened because more criminals are being caught, because the opposite is true. Prosecution rates for crimes as serious as rape, burglary and robbery are at historic lows. The justice system stands on the brink of collapse, with 20,000 fewer police, 10,000 prison cells shut and 250 courts closed. Victims are told that there are no police when they dial 999, and then they wait years to get justice, if it comes at all.
This is a Tory Government who are soft on crime,. The Justice Secretary is too focused on fighting for his job, rather than fighting criminals. Once again, the Tories are too busy saving themselves rather than doing what is right for the country. Party first, country second; criminals first, victims second. Our country needs a Government who are serious about protecting victims of crime. A Labour Government will get more police on the streets and allow victims to get their say. A Labour Government will rebuild a justice system that does not see criminals run loose. It is time that the Conservatives moved aside and let the party of law and order take control—the Labour party.

Damian Hinds: The Government make no apologies for all we are doing to keep dangerous criminals off the street, and I make no apologies for the programme to recruit 20,000 more police officers, or for tougher sentences for the most serious crimes. It is good to report that reoffending rates are down, although of course there is further to go. It is good that prosecutions are up by 7% over the last year, and convictions up by 10%, but still, as ever, there is further to go. Our No.1 priority, as the public rightly expect, is to keep our country safe.
At no point in the past five years have fewer than 1,000 cells been available across the entire prison estate, so we have not run out of prison places. This statement does not reflect a failure to plan ahead. We have absolutely  been planning ahead, and we have stuck to our expansion programme and brought forward capital works. There has been a highly unusual acute short-term surge, with increases of more than 700, and more than 800 in the last two months. This is the first time ever that we have seen that sort of increase for two consecutive months. We have a number of capacity increase options, but they are not available in that short a timeframe.
Using the established protocol with the police allows us to manage the surge while continuing to deliver that ambitious expansion. I say it is an established protocol, and the hon. Lady will recognise Operation Safeguard because it was used extensively by the previous Government before 2010. It was last used in October to December 2006, and again between January 2007 and October 2008. On this occasion we are enacting a temporary use of Operation Safeguard to manage short-term pressures, precisely to ensure that we do not run out of places. Meanwhile we are investing record amounts in prison maintenance to ensure that prisons remain safe and decent while complying with modern fire safety standards. We continue with our expansion by 20,000 places, which is the biggest growth since Victorian times.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

Bob Neill: The Minister is right, of course, to take this urgent action, and to say that this is not the first time it has had to be done. Does he recognise that two factors are at play here? One is the underlying upward trend in prisoner numbers over the past couple of decades. Those numbers have risen exponentially, and perhaps there is a case for us to look again at whether it is appropriate to be holding non-violent offenders in custody, as opposed to the dangerous people who we do need to lock up. Secondly, the Minister refers to the levels of investment in maintenance, but as he will know, the Justice Committee has more than once pointed out that even with increased spending on maintenance, there is still a significant backlog and shortfall in the maintenance budget. Many prison cells are therefore out of commission and not usable, when they ought to be brought back into use. What is being done to accelerate the maintenance programme to get more cells back into use?

Damian Hinds: I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for those important questions and points. He is right that the prison population has been growing of late, although it is not at its highest level ever. Part of that is because of tougher sentences for the worst offences, which I think is right and what the public expect and want. For other types of crime, it is important that we utilise alternatives to custodial sentences—for instance, drug desistance and advanced tagging, which is much improved—which can, on occasion, be better for getting certain individuals back on the straight and narrow.
My hon. Friend also rightly asked about maintenance, and accelerated maintenance. In fact, that is precisely what we have done. Two and a half times as many cells are currently undergoing capital works than would ordinarily be the case, precisely because we have brought forward some capital work to improve the estate. We are indeed planning for the future.

Kevan Jones: I thank the Minister for his statement. I ask him to look at Durham police’s model—and I will add that, even with the uplift, Durham constabulary will still have 100 fewer officers than in 2010. The checkpoint scheme was launched by the late Ron Hogg when he was police and crime commissioner, and a University of Cambridge study found that, of the 2,660 offenders who went through it, only 6% reoffended, saving the taxpayer more than £2 million. I suggest that, for low-risk offenders, that is better than just putting them into prison. It has the academic work behind it that proves that it works. It needs now to be expanded elsewhere. I would welcome his coming to Durham to look at the scheme.

Damian Hinds: I will be honest: I was not familiar with that particular scheme. I imagine that, in the right hon. Gentleman’s usual fashion, he will ensure that I am fully versed in it by the time I am next at the Dispatch Box. I look forward to learning more.

Rob Butler: The recent sudden growth in the adult male custodial population started during my brief tenure in the Ministry of Justice. I know that the excellent staff in HMPPS immediately began planning, and I think that the measures announced today show rightly the preparations that have been undertaken to cater for that future upsurge. Of course, it is essential that we ensure that our prisons can accommodate those whom the courts send to custody. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital that we continue to build the capacity that will be needed now and into the future?

Damian Hinds: I commend my hon. Friend and thank him for everything that he did while he was prisons Minister at the Ministry of Justice, where he is much missed. He is right to identify both the short-term and long-term programmes that are needed, and I agree with him entirely about the value of long-term planning.

Kerry McCarthy: Way too many people who are seriously mentally unwell are still being held in prison. I know that Government guidance is that they should be moved to secure hospitals when they have been assessed as needing hospital treatment within 28 days, but that is simply not happening, so they are getting more ill, which is possibly putting their lives at risk, and that makes prisons far harder to govern. Will the Minister assure me that those people will not be among those being held in the 400 police cells and that we can accelerate the transfer out of prison of people who need to be in hospital?

Damian Hinds: The hon. Lady made two important points. First, there is quite rightly screening and prioritisation to do with individual characteristics, including individual risks, when considering where people will go and who might be in the relatively small group of people going to a police cell. Of course, there is prioritisation, with those with underlying mental health issues or perhaps at risk of self-harm going straight to prison. On transfer from prison to secure hospital and the 28-day guidance, as she will know, that will become a statutory right subject to reform of the Mental Health Act 1983 passing through its stages in the House, which is important.

James Daly: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one measure that could be taken to release capacity in the prison estate is to follow the recommendations of the Justice Committee report on imprisonment for public protection prisoners and resentence the 3,000 such prisoners who have been imprisoned for an inordinate length of time and deserve to have their fates decided in a different way, rather than remaining in prison, perhaps indefinitely?

Damian Hinds: As ever, I thank the Select Committee that covers the Department for its work, including on that report. As my hon. Friend knows, a response to that particular report will be coming, and I ought not to cut across that process.

Liz Saville-Roberts: I draw Members’ attention to my role as co-chair of the justice unions parliamentary group. In all honesty, using police cells and custody suites to house prisoners for any extended period of time shows the utter failure of Westminster’s justice policy. Insufficient capacity to hold prisoners is directly linked to the staffing and workload crisis in probation. Staff under excessive pressure are more risk-averse and therefore more likely to recall offenders to prison. Does the Minister recognise that one key solution to the crisis is for probation to be properly resourced and therefore for workloads to be reduced, because probation can take the pressure off prisons?

Damian Hinds: The right hon. Lady raises an important point about probation, which is an incredibly important profession. It can be an attractive career for many people, with a real, strong sense of public service and wanting to help our whole society. We are recruiting at the moment. We need more people to join the probation service and are keen for them to do so. I hope that she will join me in encouraging that.
I think that the right hon. Lady mentioned the extended use of police cells. I want to reassure her and the House that this is not about long periods of time. It is about one or two nights for an individual. In most cases, it is one night and, the next day, that individual would be prioritised for reallocation to a prison.

Jonathan Gullis: Mr Speaker, you will be aware that, in Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, we are keen to see scumbags locked up for a longer period of time. But, unfortunately, at this moment in time, 12% of the prison population are foreign national offenders. What is the Ministry of Justice doing to get those people out to serve their sentences elsewhere?

Damian Hinds: Foreign national offenders are a significant minority of the prison population and it is important that we have a good process to remove them. As my hon. Friend will know, in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, we changed the law to enable removal at the nine-month point rather than at 12 months. Of course, we have also signed the agreement with Albania, and we are keen to sign similar agreements with other countries in the EU and the wider world.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his answers. In Northern Ireland, the prison population has increased by 3.2% this year. Justice is devolved in  Northern Ireland, as he knows, but nationally prison staff increasingly need help to cope with the prison population. What discussions has he had with his counterpart at the Northern Ireland Assembly in relation to prison capacity, to share ideas and thoughts on how to move forward and on steps to reduce the number of those in the prison population in the next year?

Damian Hinds: The hon. Gentleman is right that this is a devolved policy matter, but I am open—indeed, keen—to speaking to colleagues in the devolved Administrations and other jurisdictions. I always say that there is no practical limit to how much we can all learn from each other.

Julian Lewis: I believe that the Government have fulfilled their promise to end the automatic release of prisoners halfway through their sentences. Am I right in thinking that that will have added a certain amount of pressure on cells and accommodation? To what extent has pressure been increased by that policy? Can the Minister assure the House that there is no question of people being released earlier than they otherwise should be as a result of such pressure?

Damian Hinds: Yes—twice. We are not embarking on the policy that the previous Labour Government instituted in 2007, along the lines that my right hon. Friend mentioned. He is also right that a later point of release does add pressure. I am afraid that I am not in a position to give a mathematical factorial answer on that, but he is right to identify that as one factor. This is about keeping inside those people who have committed the most serious offences.

Simon Fell: Two thirds of people released from prison without somewhere to live reoffend within a year. That is far higher than the overall reoffending rate. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we hope to relieve pressure on prisons and improve outcomes, we need to end the merry-go-round, stop Friday releases for vulnerable people and ensure that people have the room to access statutory services that provide them with better access to accommodation rather than setting them up to fail?

Damian Hinds: The criminal justice system and imprisonment have a number of different objectives, but what they all have in common is public safety. The single most important thing we can do to make people feel safe as they go about their daily business is to reduce reoffending by people who have already been through the system. One aspect of that is making  sure that on release people have access in a timely  and efficient way to the services they need to get accommodation, to start looking for a job and to receive medical treatment if needed. That is harder when a lot of people are all released at the same time on a Friday. I know that my hon. Friend has a landmark private Member’s Bill coming to the House on Friday  to address this specific question and I wish him well with that.

Tom Hunt: The answer to the issue of capacity should never be to soften sentences for people who are not safe to have within our community. However, when I was on the Education Committee, I was very  concerned to hear that about 30% of those in prison have learning disabilities. The prison education report we published suggested that every prison should have a special educational needs specialist, and that everyone coming into the prison estate should see an educational psychologist. Will my right hon. Friend find time to meet me to discuss the report and how we can work together to try to ensure that more people with learning disabilities do not end up in the criminal justice system because they get the support and diagnoses that they need?

Damian Hinds: It is always a pleasure to meet my hon. Friend and discussing that report would be an admirable reason to do so. There is much more awareness of this issue now than in times past. Whether it is SEN or low prior attainment in English and maths, such characteristics are more represented in the prison population than in the general population. We now have neurodiversity specialists in prisons, and we can do much more with educational materials to recognise SEN and the different ways that people learn. As my hon. Friend suggests, ideally we want to do more of that much earlier in the journey, so that people do not become incarceration cases at all. That is a harder nut to crack, but I would be delighted to talk to him about that.

Point of Order

Sarah Champion: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like your advice on how my Select Committee can receive timely responses from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office on our reports. The International Development Committee published a powerful and pertinent report on racism in the aid sector on 23 June. The convention is that the Government should respond within eight weeks. It has now been more than 22 weeks: what can I do?

Rosie Winterton: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me notice of her point of order. She is right that the expectation is that the Government should respond to Committee reports within eight weeks. While there may sometimes be exceptional circumstances that justify a later response, that should be negotiated with the Committee concerned. In general, it is very important that the standard response time is met to ensure that Committee reports are dealt with in a timely way. Having to wait 22 weeks for a response is not acceptable. Ministers on the Treasury Bench will have heard these comments, and I hope that FCDO Ministers will ensure that a response is produced quickly. I want to emphasise how important this is, because Select Committees are a key way of holding Government accountable and scrutinising what they do. It is important that this is fed back to the FCDO and that a response is given.

Roadworks (Regulation)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Mark Francois: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the regulation of roadworks; and for connected purposes.
One of the great frustrations of modern life is queueing for ages in a line of traffic, inching forwards to get through a set of contra-flow traffic lights at the scene of some roadworks, only to then crawl past a large hole in the ground, heavily coned off, with absolutely no one working on the site, as you finally drive past it. According to data highlighted by The Echo newspaper, recent freedom of information requests showed that, during the 2021-22 financial year, there were over 77,000 street and roadworks in my county of Essex, making it the most dug up county in Britain and leading it to be infamously dubbed by UK Daily News as “the UK’s roadworks capital.”
London also has a major problem. Indeed, a black cab driver told me recently:
“in all my 32 years of driving a black cab Governor, I have never known the roadworks situation in London, to be as bad as this.”
However, the curse of prolonged and over-running roadworks is one that applies across the entire country, from motorways to country lanes, including in the newly bestowed city of Southend. My great friend, the late Sir David Amess, shared many of my frustrations regarding the regulation of roadworks, so while the Bill has 11 sponsors, as is usual, I confess that I like to think that, in cricketing terms, he is my 12th man today. I am also delighted to see his worthy successor, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth), in her place.
As we know, sometimes, roadwork delays are due to utility companies carrying out repairs or maintenance, broadband providers laying new fibre or property developers connecting new estates to the power grid. In many cases, however, the common denominator is a lack of any palpable sense of urgency whatever to get the job done, regardless of the inconvenience which is caused to the travelling public. As a constituency MP who has received a growing tide of complaints about the spiralling frequency of roadworks in recent years, I propose legislation to try to finally do something about it. In short, I want to try to can the cones, and I seek the support of the House today in doing so.
The Bill essentially has three key aims. First, it would give local highways authorities much stronger powers to control the granting of permits to anyone who wanted to dig up the highway network. Under the 2004 traffic management scheme, permit arrangements were enabled, allowing utility companies to
“book occupation of the street for specified periods for a specified purpose.”
However, currently highways authorities can only really refuse to grant a permit on safety grounds and, if those applying for one deem the work to be an emergency, the ability of the authority to refuse is even weaker still. The Bill would allow refusal on the grounds of causing unacceptable disruption and would materially strengthen  the hand of councils to negotiate much tighter conditions, including stricter deadlines, when granting permits, so that companies would hopefully be prevented from over-running in the first place.
Secondly, the Bill would mandate highway authorities to take all practicable steps to “deconflict” roadworks in their areas, to prevent multiple works in the same neighbourhood from leading to near gridlock, especially during peak periods. Under section 59 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, local authorities are required to co-ordinate roadworks to minimise disruption to road users. It states that
“local authorities shall use their best endeavours to coordinate the execution of works of all kinds.”
But the truth on the ground—what really goes on in practice, rather than just in abstract policy—is that some local highways authorities are clearly not following those requirements. For instance, a few years ago we had near chaos in my home-town of Rayleigh, when several sets of roadworks, on the main arteries in and out of the town, were allowed to proceed at almost exactly the same time. When we subsequently looked into why, it turned out that the official at County Hall who handed out permits to developers did not communicate with the one who gave them to utility companies. One constituent put it to me at the time that
“there seems to be no forethought or planning and no coordination—it’s ludicrous.”
The Bill would seek to rectify that by trying to ensure a much more joined-up approach, by imposing much stricter procedures on highways authorities that give out the permits, and it would also seek to prevent the same stretch of road from being dug up multiple times, in short succession, by different companies.
Thirdly, the Bill would materially increase the fines for roadworks that overrun. At present, under section 74 of the 1991 Act, local highways authorities have the power to fine utility companies for “unreasonably prolonged” occupation of the highway. The fine tariff is set out in the Street Works (Charges for Unreasonably Prolonged Occupation of the Highway) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2012, which provide for a maximum charge for “traffic-sensitive” streets of £5,000 a day for the first three days of overrun and £10,000 a day thereafter.
However, for streets that fall outside that tightly defined category, the fines fall away dramatically. Crucially, the fines have not been updated or adjusted for inflation since 2012. They are hardly likely to be a deterrent to major utility companies or housing developers, some of whom just accept them—on the rare occasions that they are actually levied—as a cost of doing business. The Bill would significantly increase the penalties for overrunning beyond the schedule agreed when the permit was first granted. Persistent offenders could be fined up to 10% of their annual corporate turnover, which should make even the most tin-earned company sit up and listen.
In the most egregious example that I can cite, at a single junction named Sadlers Farm, which borders my constituency, there have been ongoing roadworks for more than five years, with much of the highway coned off and speed restrictions in place, although with precious little work actually taking place. That is due to an ongoing dispute between Essex County Council and  Balfour Beatty, yet we still have no definitive date for when these so-called “works” will ever be finished. I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), who is in her place beside me, will have considerable sympathy for my proposal.
As an MP with more than two decades of service, I know that it is a rare thing for a ten-minute rule Bill to make it on to the statute book. Nevertheless, I hope that the Government might yet be minded to grant it Government time to assist its passage. Failing that, I would like a meeting with the Transport Secretary, so that we can seek at last to “can the cones”, either through legislation or, at the very least, by strengthening Government guidance to highways authorities to achieve the same effect.
In summary, no one likes roadworks, but everyone reluctantly accepts that they are sometimes a necessary evil. However, the spirit of the Bill is to say, in essence, “If you really do have to dig up the road network, get in, do what you have to do as quickly and safely as possible, and then get out of the way and get the traffic flowing again.” This is not a partisan issue; it is something on which all Members of Parliament and, even more importantly, their constituents can agree. Let us get the traffic flowing. Let us can the cones.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Mr Mark Francois, Sir James Duddridge, Stephen Metcalfe, Sir John Whittingdale, Vicky Ford, Richard Drax, Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck, Mr Marcus Fysh, Mr David Jones, Mr Laurence Robertson, Priti Patel and Craig Mackinlay present the Bill.
Mr Mark Francois accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time Friday 20 January 2023 and to be printed (Bill 203).

Finance Bill

Considered in Committee
[Dame Rosie Winterton in the Chair]

Clause 1 - Increase in rate of tax

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Rosie Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 4, in clause 2, page 3, line 3, at end insert—
“(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before the House of Commons reports setting out—
(a) an assessment of the revenue that is generated by the energy (oil and gas) profits levy in the period to which the report relates,
(b) an assessment of the revenue that would have been generated in the period to which the report relates if the investment allowance had not been in effect, and
(c) the names of companies that have made use of the investment allowance and the revenue that would have been generated by them during the period to which the report relates if the investment allowance had not been in effect.
(4) The first report under subsection (3) shall be laid as soon as practicable after the 1 January 2023, in respect of the period 26 May 2022 to 1 January 2023.
(5) Subsequent reports under this section shall be laid every three months thereafter, and in respect of the period since the last report.”
This amendment would require the Government to produce an assessment of how much revenue would be generated by the Energy Profits Levy if the relief for investment expenditure had not been in effect, and to produce a quarterly report assessing how much revenue has been forgone because of the investment expenditure relief.
Clause 2 stand part.
Amendment 3, in clause 3, page 3, line 14, at end insert—
“(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this section coming into force, lay before the House of Commons an assessment of the revenue that would have been generated if, in section 1 of the Energy (Oil and Gas) Profits Levy Act 2022 (charge to tax), in subsection (3) (which sets out the accounting periods by reference to which the tax is charged), in paragraph (a), for ‘26 May 2022’, there had been substituted ‘6 October 2021’.”
This amendment would require the Government to produce an assessment of how much revenue would be generated by the Energy Profits Levy if it had been introduced on 6th October 2021.
Clauses 3 and 4 stand part.
Amendment 2, in clause 5, page 4, line 6, at end insert—
“(5) HMRC must contact every individual affected by the provisions of this section to inform them whether, as a result of the provisions of this section—
(a) they have become liable to pay the basic rate of income tax (when they were not previously so liable);
(b) they have become liable to pay the higher rate of income tax (when they were not previously so liable); and
(c) how much additional income tax they will pay as a result of the change.”
This amendment would require HMRC to contact every individual who become liable to pay standard tax or move from standard to higher rate, and how much additional tax they will have to pay as a result.
Clauses 5 to 9 stand part.
Amendment 5, in clause 10, page 7, line 23, at end insert—
“(8) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six month of this section coming into force, and quarterly thereafter, lay before the House of Commons an assessment of the impact of the changes in this section on—
(a) the Secretary of State’s ability to meet the duty set out in section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008,
(b) air pollution in the United Kingdom, and
(c) the provision of electric vehicle infrastructure and public transport in the United Kingdom.”
This amendment would require the Chancellor to produce quarterly assessments of the impact of the removal of VED exemption for electrically propelled vehicles on the UK’s climate change duties, air pollution and EV infrastructure and public transport.
Clauses 10 to 12 stand part.
New clause 1—Assessment of the impact of the investment allowance—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this Act coming into force, publish an assessment of—
(a) the revenue that the energy (oil and gas) profits levy will yield,
(b) the revenue that the energy (oil and gas) profits levy would yield if the investment allowance did not have effect in respect of investment expenditure, and
(c) the revenue that the energy (oil and gas) profits levy would yield if the investment allowance did not have effect in respect of expenditure on decarbonisation by oil and gas companies.
(2) The assessment must cover the whole period that the levy is in effect and also assess the revenue in each tax year.
(3) The assessment must include an evaluation of the impact of the investment allowance on the United Kingdom’s ability to meet its climate commitments, including—
(a) the target for 2050 set out in section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008,
(b) applicable carbon budgets made pursuant to section 4 of the Climate Change Act 2008, and
(c) the commitment given by the government of the United Kingdom in the Glasgow Climate Pact to pursue policies to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.”
This new clause would require the Government to publish an assessment of the impact of the investment allowance on revenue raised by the Energy (Oil and Gas) Profits Levy, including investment by oil and gas companies in UK oil and gas extraction and upstream decarbonisation. The assessment should also cover the impact of the investment allowance on the UK’s ability to meet its domestic and international climate targets.
New clause 2—Review of revenue from the Energy (Oil and Gas) Profits Levy—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within three months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, publish an assessment of the revenue estimated to be generated from the Energy (Oil and Gas) Profit Levy in each of the financial years 2021-22 to 2027-28.
(2) In addition to an evaluation of the revenue forecast to be raised by the Levy, the assessment must include an evaluation showing the estimated revenue that would have been raised if each of the following had been the case—
(a) the qualifying accounting period specified in section 1(3) of the Energy (Oil and Gas) Profits Levy Act 2022 had begun on 3 January 2022,
(b) the rate of the levy had been increased to 38% under this Act, and
(c) the amount of additional investment expenditure had been reduced to 0% by this Act.”
This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to publish an assessment of estimated revenue from the energy (oil and gas) profit levy in financial years 2021-22 to 2027-28, and set out how these figures would be affected if levy were backdated to 3 January 2022, and if the rate of levy was increased to 38%, and the amount of additional investment expenditure reduced to 0%, by this Act.
New clause 3—Research and Development tax relief policy—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within three months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, publish an assessment of research and development tax relief for small or medium-sized enterprises.
(2) The assessment must include the Chancellor’s assessment of the effectiveness of R&D tax reliefs and plans he has to further reform of R&D tax reliefs.”
This new clause would require the Government to publish an assessment of their view on the effectiveness of R&D tax reliefs for small and medium-sized enterprises and their intentions for any further reform.
New clause 4—Research and Development tax relief fraud and waste—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within three months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, publish an assessment of research and development tax relief for small or medium-sized enterprises.
(2) This assessment must include the following, in respect of each tax year since 2018–19—
(a) an evaluation of the amount of money that has been incorrectly deducted as a qualifying cost, or incorrectly paid as a tax credit, as a result of—
(i) fraud, and
(ii) error,
(b) set out, in relation to sums incorrectly deducted as a qualifying cost, or incorrectly paid as a tax credit—
(i) how many investigations have taken place,
(ii) how many prosecutions have been brought,
(iii) how many prosecutions have resulted in a conviction, and
(iv) how much money has been reclaimed.”
This new clause would require the Government to publish a statement on error and fraud in the SME R&D tax reliefs, including details of what actions they have taken in response.
New clause 5—Assessment of the impact of changes to the basic rate limit and personal allowance for tax years 2026-27 and 2027-28—
“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within three months of this Act coming into force, publish an assessment of the expected impact on an average earner of the provisions of section 5 (Basic rate limit and personal allowance for tax years 2026–27 and 2027–28).”
This new clause will require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to publish an assessment of the impact on average earners of the decision to freeze the basic rate limit and personal allowances for tax years 2026/27 and 2027/28.
New clause 6—Impact assessment of measures in the Act—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within three months of this Act coming into force, publish an assessment of the impact of the provisions of this Act.
(2) This assessment must consider the effects of the provisions of the Act on—
(a) different regions and nations of the United Kingdom,
(b) people with different protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010, and
(c) people with a range of different incomes.”
This new clause will require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to publish an assessment of the impact of the measures in this Act on people in different parts of the United Kingdom, and on groups of people with different protected characteristics and incomes.
New clause 7—Assessment of the impact of measures in the Act on growth—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within three months of this Act coming into force, publish an assessment of the impact of provisions of this Act on economic growth.
(2) This assessment must consider the forecast impact of measures in this Act on growth of—
(a) the UK economy as whole,
(b) the economy of different regions and nations on the UK, and
(c) average incomes in the UK.”
This new clause will require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to publish an assessment of the impact of measures in this Act on growth in the UK economy, as well as its impact on growth in different regions and nations of the UK, and its impact on growth of average incomes.
New clause 9—Assessment of investment relief on compliance with the climate change target for 2050—
“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this section coming into force, and quarterly thereafter, lay before the House of Commons an assessment of the impact of the effect of the relief for investment expenditure provided in sections 1 and 2 of the Energy (Oil and Gas) Profits Levy Act 2022 on—
(a) the Secretary of State’s ability to meet the duty set out in section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008, and
(b) the additional quantity of carbon dioxide that will be generated in the United Kingdom.”
This new clause would require the Chancellor to produce an assessment of the impact of the relief for investment expenditure in relation to the Energy Profits Levy on the Secretary of State’s ability to meet the target of ensuring that the net UK carbon account for the year 2050 is at least 100% lower than the 1990 baseline. And produce a report each quarter detailing how much additional CO2 has been produced because of the investment expenditure relief.
New clause 10—Review of effect on small businesses—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before Parliament within six months of the passing of this Act a review of the impact of the measures contained in this Act on small businesses.
(2) The review must consider in particular the impact of those measures on the ability of small businesses to—
(a) meet their energy bills,
(b) minimise their debt,
(c) pay their rent,
(d) remain solvent, and
(e) employ staff.
(3) The review must include an assessment of the number of small businesses which will become liable to register for VAT as a result of the measures contained in this Act.
(4) In this section, ‘small businesses’ means any business which has average headcount of staff of less than 50 in the tax year 2022-23.”
This new clause would require the Government to produce an impact assessment of the effect of the Act on small businesses.

Victoria Atkins: It is a pleasure to represent the Government in this important Committee. At the autumn statement,  my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out the significant economic challenges that we face and our plan to ensure that we have economic stability, encourage growth and protect our public services. Securing fiscal sustainability in a responsible and balanced way inevitably requires some difficult decisions. We do not shy away from that, but we have sought to ensure that the heaviest burden falls on those with the broadest shoulders.
The Bill’s first three clauses relate to the energy profits levy. Clause 1 increases the rate of the levy and addresses consequential technical matters. It will ensure that oil and gas companies benefiting from extraordinary profits due to exceptionally high prices will continue to pay their fair share of tax. As hon. Members will know, the Government introduced the levy in May this year as a temporary surcharge on the extraordinary profits being made on the oil and gas sector, driven by global circumstances.

Robert Syms: Will the Minister define “extraordinary”—not necessarily now, but during the debate?

Victoria Atkins: I will happily do so. My hon. Friend will know the definition of “extraordinary” in relation to the electricity generators levy. We will come to the profits levy in due course.
The Government are raising the rate of the levy from 25% to 35% from 1 January next year, bringing the headline tax rate for the sector to 75%. That is because commodity prices—particularly gas—are expected to remain above their long-term average for the foreseeable future. However, the Government want the oil and gas sector to reinvest its profits to support the economy, jobs and the UK’s energy security, which is why the levy has an investment allowance that means that businesses overall get a 91p tax saving for every pound that they invest, providing them with an additional, immediate incentive to invest.
Clause 2 makes changes to the rate of the investment allowance within the levy to ensure that the total tax relief remains broadly the same following the increase in rate to 35%. Specifically, the clause reduces the rate of the investment allowance from 80% to 29%, effective, again, from 1 January next year. That will maintain the overall cumulative value of investment reliefs, which means that a company investing £100 will be able to claim £91.40 back in tax relief. To be clear, the investment allowance will remain at 80% for investment expenditure on upstream decarbonisation, so that we continue to support the transition to low-carbon electricity production. That will be legislated for in the spring Finance Bill, following further detailed technical work and consultation with interested parties.

Caroline Lucas: The Minister will know that oil and gas companies are raking in obscene levels of profit. Why does she think it is reasonable to give incentives—through taxpayers’ money—to companies that are already raking in huge profits at a time when a cost of living crisis is driving so many families into real hardship?

Victoria Atkins: Certainly. I hope the hon. Lady will agree that we all want to see more decarbonisation, which is precisely why we have set the net zero landmark  achievement for 2050, as she knows. In relation to energy security, we have to be realistic about where we are. Much as some campaigners would like it, we cannot stop using oil tomorrow. We have to find reasonable and methodical ways of decarbonising, which is precisely what the investment allowances aim to do, while encouraging different businesses, and indeed those businesses, to invest in carbon-free and low-carbon forms of energy production.
Clause 3 will extend the levy so that it ends on 31 March 2028 rather than in 2025. Although the levy remains a temporary measure, the change simply reflects the fact that global factors are now expected to keep commodity prices, particularly gas prices, elevated for longer than was first anticipated. At the same time, the Government recognise that certainty is key for oil and gas investments. There will therefore no longer be an early phase-out of the levy ahead of the new March 2028 end date, according to prices.
Together, the changes introduced in clauses 1 to 3 will raise approximately £20 billion over the next six years. The total revenue now expected from the levy is just over £40 billion over the same period.
Clause 4 relates to rates of research and development tax credits. The changes it makes will ensure that taxpayers’ money is spent as effectively as possible. Despite the UK spending the most in the OECD on R&D tax reliefs, the current system does not provide good enough value for taxpayers. The cash value of the scheme that looks after small and medium-sized enterprises is currently three times that of the research and development expenditure credit. The corporation rate change due from April next year will make the issue worse by incentivising less R&D per £1 of taxpayer support. Sadly, the SME scheme’s generosity has also made it a target for fraud.
The clause will therefore rebalance the generosity between RDEC and the SME scheme, specifically by increasing the RDEC rate from 13% to 20%, decreasing the SME enhanced deduction from 130% to 86%, and decreasing the SME credit rate from 14.5% to 10%. The changes that the clause will introduce are also a step towards a possible simplified single RDEC-like scheme for all.
Despite raising revenue, this reform is forecast to leave the level of R&D investment in the economy unchanged. More broadly, the Government have recommitted to increasing R&D spending to £20 billion by 2024-25. Ahead of the spring Budget, we will work with industry to understand whether further support is necessary for R&D-intensive SMEs. I know that is the point that most concerns several colleagues; I suspect that we will hear more about it in due course.
Clauses 5 and 6 relate to income tax thresholds. As the autumn statement sets out, the path to fiscal sustainability requires us to ask everyone to contribute a little more towards our public finances, but we are doing so in a fair way: those with more are being asked to contribute more.
Clause 5 will set the personal allowance at £12,570 and the basic rate limit at £37,700 for 2026-27 and 2027-28. Those thresholds, which have already been fixed at the current levels until April 2026, will be maintained for a further two years until April 2028. I hope hon. Members will note that the personal allowance  is still the most generous tax-free personal allowance of any G7 country. Thanks to previous significant real-terms increases, it will still be more than £2,000 higher by April 2028 than if it had been uprated by inflation since 2010, with an estimated 1.6 million more people taken out of paying tax. Approximately 30% of people do not pay tax as a result of the personal allowance. I hope Government Members are proud that we have achieved that.
This Government also enacted the largest ever increase to a personal tax starting threshold in July this year by raising the national insurance starting threshold to £12,570, ensuring that some of the lowest earners do not pay any tax. That means that in 2028 someone on the average salary of £28,000 will still pay almost £900 less in tax than if tax thresholds had gone up with inflation since 2010. The income tax higher rate threshold is still high enough to protect the vast majority of people from paying the higher rate of income tax; approximately 80% of taxpayers pay tax at the basic rate.
Clause 6 will deal with those at the higher end of the income scale, to ensure that our return to sustainable public finances happens in a fair way. It will lower the additional rate threshold from £150,000 to £125,140 from April next year, meaning that income above that level will be taxed at 45%. Only the top 2% of taxpayers will be affected by this measure, which is expected to raise £800 million per year by 2024-25, with the vast majority of revenue—more than 80%—coming from those who earn more than £150,000.

Robert Syms: My hon. Friend is no doubt aware that, because some higher rate taxpayers lose their personal allowance, the marginal rate between about £100,000 and £120,000 can be as high as 60%. Has any thought been given to whether we should smooth that out, particularly if we are lowering the rate when you hit 45p? I think it would make for a better tax system. The artificial level needs to be dealt with, perhaps by ensuring that the withdrawal of the personal allowance happens over a wider income band.

Victoria Atkins: A great deal of thought went into the matter at the Treasury ahead of the autumn statement. The reason for our approach is that there are significant difficulties with the alternatives. I do not think that anyone would want a cliff edge at £100,000 where someone who earned £1 over that amount would suddenly lose the entirety of their personal allowance. We have tried in the past to taper it, although I appreciate that that has led to the situation that my hon. Friend describes. We have brought the 45p rate down to £125,000 precisely because that is the end of the taper rate for the personal allowance. We have tried to make things a little simpler; I will happily admit that the tax system is very complicated, but we have tried to simplify that part of it. I do accept my hon. Friend’s point about the marginal tax relief rate, which we genuinely continue to consider because we want to be fair to those who, through hard work, contribute as much to the tax system as they do.
On clause 6, I was saying that the vast majority of revenue—more than 80%—will come from those who earn more than £150,000. We say that the UK remains an attractive place to work and do business. The threshold is still comparable to those of other countries with a  similar top marginal rate of tax, but in the circumstances we are in, it is fair that those who earn more contribute more.
Clauses 7 to 9 deal with other allowances. Clause 7 will reduce the tax-free allowance for dividend income from £2,000 to £1,000 in April 2023, and to £500 from April 2024. That will raise more than £3 billion by April 2028 and will make the tax system fairer by bringing the treatment of investment income closer in line with that of earned income. Keeping the dividend allowance at £500 will still ensure that people are not taxed on low levels of dividend income, because the combination of the personal allowance and the dividend allowance will mean that approximately 25% of people with taxable dividend income will continue to pay no dividend tax, even once the measure has come into effect. People will still be able to receive tax-free dividend income from investments made through their individual savings accounts, in which taxpayers can invest £20,000 each year.
Clause 8 makes changes to the capital gains tax annual exempt amount, or AEA. The AEA is the total amount of capital gains that an individual may make free of capital gains tax each year, and is currently set at £12,300. For the tax year 2023-24, the rate will be £6,000 for individuals; it will then be reduced to £3,000 from 2024 onwards. The clause also abolishes the annual uprating of the AEA in line with the consumer prices index, and fixes the capital gains tax reporting proceeds limit at £50,000. Reforming the system to reduce the value of the capital gains tax-free allowance supports strong public finances, and makes the system fairer by bringing the treatment of capital gains closer into line with that of income while still ensuring that individuals are not taxed on low levels of capital gains.

Geraint Davies: May I ask a simple question? Why has capital gains tax not been brought completely into line with income tax? I know that it is converging, but are there any plans for it to converge further, for equity’s sake—in terms of working and investment?

Victoria Atkins: We acknowledge that there may be people who receive very small amounts of capital gains—through historic investments in shares, for example—but for some there is also an element of risk taking, perhaps when they are starting their own businesses. We want to reflect that, but we are mindful of the need for a closer relationship between the two systems, which is why we have tried to achieve a fair balance between those who earn their incomes through paid employment or self-employment and those who obtain theirs through dividends and capital gains.
Clause 9 maintains the current levels of inheritance tax thresholds for two years longer than previously planned, until 2028. Despite these changes, qualifying estates will still be able to pass on up to half a million pounds tax free, and the estates of surviving spouses and civil partners will still be able to pass on up to £1 million tax free. More than 93% of estates will continue to have no tax inheritance liability in each of  the next five years; only 6% are expected to have a liability in 2022-23, and it will still only be 6.6% in 2027-28.
Let me now turn to the clauses relating to the taxation of electric vehicles. The transition to EVs continues apace, with new electric car registrations increasing by 76% between 2020 and 2021. Given the OBR’s forecast that 50% of all new vehicles will be electric by 2025, it is right that we seek to bring those vehicles into the motoring tax system.

Matt Rodda: Can the Minister update the Committee on what research is being carried out by her colleagues in Government on the future impact of this measure? There has been a healthy take-up of electric vehicles so far, but she has not mentioned the future.

Victoria Atkins: I shall come to that in a moment, but we have been committed since 2020 to supporting the transition to electric vehicles; in fact, we have committed ourselves to £2.5 billion of support. We are giving the industry certainty about the scale of its ambitions through the zero-emission vehicle mandate. We will continue to incentivise low-emission vehicles through the company car tax, to which I am about to refer. We already publish data on air pollution, electric charging infrastructure and vehicle registrations by fuel type. That information will be available for the House to scrutinise—and, indeed, available to anyone who is interested—over the coming years.
Clause 10 will equalise the vehicle excise duty treatment of electric, petrol and diesel vehicles from April 2025, applying to both new and existing electric vehicles. The VED system will continue to support the transition to electric vehicles through favourable first-year VED rates for the lowest-emission vehicles, and owners of new zero-emission cars registered on or after 1 April 2025 will be liable to the lowest first-year VED rate, which is currently £10 a year. From the second year of registration onwards they will move to the standard rate, which is currently £165 a year. The expensive car supplement exemption for electric vehicles is also due to end in 2025. Eligible new vehicles, which are currently those with a list price exceeding £40,000, will therefore also be liable for the supplement. Those changes will raise more than £1.5 billion a year by 2028.
However, we continue to provide, and want to provide, appropriate incentives for the transition to electric cars. Clause 11—here I come to the point raised by the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda)—therefore makes changes to secure long-term certainty on company car tax rates, which have been effective in incentivising the take-up of low and zero-emission vehicles. According to figures from the British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association, about 60% of electric vehicles on UK roads are company-registered. We have tried to ensure that that continues by increasing the appropriate rates up to 2028, and in a modest fashion. These rates are used for the purpose of calculating the taxable benefit of a company car, and we are setting them out now to provide certainty about the tax incentives available for the transition to electric vehicles. This measure supports the continued take-up of lower-emission vehicles and, therefore, our broader commitments on climate change and air quality.

Matt Rodda: I thank the Minister for her extensive description of the current policy, but it still appears that the Government are not yet planning to assess the likely decline in the take-up of electric vehicles as a result of the tax changes. Will she please write to me to clarify the position?

Victoria Atkins: I will happily write to the hon. Gentleman, who I know takes a close interest in this issue, but I must challenge the assumption that the measure will lead to a decline in the take-up of electric vehicles. This is an example of the Government’s boosting interest in electric vehicles at quite a delicate stage in their development. I say that as a proud early adopter of an electric vehicle—and even a few years ago, the number of charging points was far lower than it is now.
Of course there is much more to be done over the coming years, but I think the public will begin to gain even more confidence in the range of electric vehicles, especially as companies are able to improve their range and we build an infrastructure of charging points around the United Kingdom. That in itself will help to encourage take-up, along with, of course, the bold commitment to prohibiting the sale of new petrol and diesel cars in 2030. We wanted very much to encourage this in its early days, but we think we have now reached a stage at which the 7 million or so electric vehicles on the road should be contributing their piece towards keeping the road network in the state that we would expect.

Geraint Davies: Is the Treasury looking into the possibility of higher taxes on SUVs? These much larger vehicles consume more petrol and diesel, but also take up more parking space and kill more children and other pedestrians. They also stick out in the road and obstruct cyclists. The number of SUVs is increasing enormously. Is there any reason for the fact that the Minister did not look into that higher taxation, perhaps some political reason? It would clearly be a good environmental and economic initiative.

Victoria Atkins: We introduced the expensive car supplement some time ago, and a great many of the cars that the hon. Gentleman has described would fall into that category, particularly if they were bought new. Notwithstanding his assertion, there is no ideological reason for this. We are very conscious of the pressures on the majority of road users, and although, as the hon. Gentleman fairly pointed out, the use of SUVs has increased, that certainly does not mean that everyone who buys a third-hand or fourth-hand SUV is among the wealthiest in society. So we have tried to balance the rights and interests of those who are already paying car tax and also of those driving electric vehicles, who we think, after a certain period of time, should be contributing more towards the tax system than they do at the moment.
As I was saying, clause 11 deals with company car tax rates in order to provide businesses with the certainty they need to plan in relation to vehicle provision. Finally, clause 12 simply sets out the short title of the Bill in the usual manner for such legislation. I hope that hon. Members will not have anything to say about that, but I look forward to any comments on clause 12. I have stuck to the Bill itself because I want to listen to those hon. Members who have kindly put down amendments,  which will be debated now. I will attempt to answer some of those challenges, questions and points as I wind up the Committee stage of the Bill in due course.

Rosie Winterton: I call the shadow Minister.

James Murray: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for this opportunity to consider the details of the Bill and speak to the amendments and new clauses in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare).
As we have heard from the Minister, the first three clauses of the Bill relate to the energy, oil and gas profits levy—or, as everyone in the country apart from Conservative Ministers calls it, the windfall tax. It has been a painful journey to get this windfall tax on the statute book. As I set out on Second Reading, it took five months for the Government to finally support the principle of a windfall tax after my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) first called on them to introduce one in January this year.
The current Prime Minister, who was Chancellor at the time, was dragged kicking and screaming into introducing a windfall tax before the summer, but even then he decided to couple it with a massive tax break for oil and gas giants. We do not believe it is right to let that large untargeted and unnecessary tax break continue. It is a tax break that the current Prime Minister introduced and that has left some oil and gas giants paying no windfall tax at all this year. That is why we have been pressing the Conservatives to remove that loophole.
We have also pressed the Government to strengthen the windfall tax by raising its rate from 25% to 38%, a move that would align the overall rate with the taxation of oil and gas profits in Norway. We have also pressed them to extend its period of impact by backdating it to January 2022, the month when the shadow Chancellor first proposed it, and by extending it to 2027-28. We therefore welcome at least some strengthening of the windfall tax in clause 1, which increases its rate to 35%, and clause 3, which extends the period it affects to the end of 2027-28. These clauses do not go as far as we have proposed. They fall short of our plans to increase the rate of the windfall tax to 38% and to backdate it to January 2022, but they do confirm a frequent and recurring pattern when it comes to the windfall tax: Labour leads with the ideas while the Tories object, only ultimately to be dragged kicking and screaming into a U-turn.
Clause 2 highlights one respect in which the Government are still resisting following our lead. In that clause, they have made changes to the rate at which additional investment expenditure is calculated. As the explanatory notes make clear, this rate has been carefully set to
“maintain the overall cumulative value of relief for investment expenditure”.
Let us be clear what this means. The rate of the windfall tax might be going up, but the Government are making sure that the tax break for oil and gas giants is safe. As we see time and again, even when the Government are forced to legislate on a windfall tax, they cannot bring themselves to do it properly.
It is for this reason that we have tabled new clause 2, which would require the Chancellor to publish an assessment of the revenue that is estimated to be generated by the windfall tax and show how much more it would raise if it were backdated to January 2022, if it were increased to 38% and if the additional investment expenditure were reduced to zero—a move that would remove at least some of the oil and gas giants’ tax break. We urge hon. and right hon. Members from all parts of the Committee to support this new clause and help us to push the Government for a stronger and more effective windfall tax that no longer includes such a huge giveaway to the oil and gas giants.
Clause 4 of the Bill concerns tax relief for expenditure on research and development. As we have heard from the Minister, the clause reduces the additional deduction for R&D costs incurred by small and medium-sized enterprises and reduces the rate at which qualifying losses can be surrendered by such companies. At the same time, it increases the rate of R&D expenditure credit, which is mainly claimed by large companies. On this side of the House, we recognise the need to support R&D as a crucial part of driving growth in our economy. It is critical for the Government to have in place a system of R&D tax relief that is effective, that provides as much certainty as possible for businesses to make the investments that our economy so badly needs, and that provides crucial support to key growth sectors in the UK.
However, we also firmly recognise the need for public money to be spent wisely. We know that this Government have overseen a surge in fraud and error, so we have tabled new clause 4, which would require the Government to make clear the extent of fraud and waste in relation to R&D tax reliefs for SMEs, alongside details of what action they have taken in response. In the autumn statement, the changes that are being legislated for in this Bill that relate to R&D tax reliefs were described as being a step towards a new, simplified scheme. We believe there is an urgent need for a new scheme that tackles fraud and supports R&D, so we have tabled new clause 3, which would explicitly require the Government to publish details of the Chancellor’s plans for reform. We know that firms in key growth sectors such as life sciences are anxious to know what the Government are planning, and they deserve a straight answer as soon as possible, given the uncertainty that the changes in the Bill create. We urge hon. Members across the House to support new clause 3 today to help to make this happen.
I will address clause 5 in a moment, as we will be seeking a vote on that part of the Bill. First, I will make a few remarks relating to some of the remaining parts of the Bill. We will not be opposing the other clauses in the Bill, but I would like to raise questions that arise in relation to some of them about what the Government’s wider plans might be. For instance, in clause 6, the additional rate threshold is lowered. We support a fairer tax system that sees those with the broadest shoulders paying their fair share. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that, as a result of clause 6, the Government expect the additional rate threshold to rise if and when the personal allowance begins to rise again. Our  understanding of the proposed legislation is that it would reduce the extra tax paid by top earners as a result of future decisions to increase the personal allowance, even if such a decision was intended to help lower earners. Can the Minister confirm whether that is the case? Likewise, in relation to clause 10, which removes the VED exemption for electric vehicles, we urge the Government to set out more clearly where this decision sits within a wider strategy to increase the take-up of electric vehicles.
I turn now to clause 5, on which we will be seeking a vote. We know that clause 5 represents the latest stealth tax on working people from this Government. Freezes to the income tax personal allowance that this Government have implemented will leave an average earner paying over £500 more in income tax a year by 2027-28. That is what it looks like when working people are being made to pay the price for the Conservatives’ economic failure over the past 12 years and their economic chaos of the past 12 weeks.
It is all the more galling for people to be asked to pay more when the Conservatives are so slapdash with public money. Earlier this week, new figures showed that the current Prime Minister lost £6.7 billion to covid fraud as a consequence of ignoring warnings about the lack of basic checks. Extraordinary sums of public money are now in the hands of fraudsters, organised criminals and drug gangs. It is more galling still for working people to be asked to pay more tax when the Government are refusing to make the fairer choices on taxation that are staring them in the face. The truth is that as a result of this Bill, working people will be hit by stealth tax rises while UK residents with non-dom status will not be asked to pay a penny more on the income they earn overseas. We believe that non-dom status is a fundamental unfairness in the tax system. It leaves the public purse missing out on £3.2 billion a year. We believe that if you make Britain your home, you should pay your taxes here.
On Second Reading, I asked Ministers to confirm, at the end of the debate or in writing, whether the Prime Minister had been consulted on the option of abolishing non-dom status. I asked them to confirm whether abolishing non-dom status was ever considered as an option for this Bill. I asked whether, when the current Prime Minister was Chancellor, he ever recused himself from discussions on this matter. I thought I saw the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury acknowledge my request. However, when the Financial Secretary, who is here today, closed the debate, she neither answered my questions nor promised to write to me. I am sure that was an inadvertent oversight, so I ask her to correct it today, either by answering my questions directly or by agreeing to write to me with answers following today’s debate.
We know the Finance Bill derives from an autumn statement with no plan for growth. We know it makes unfair choices and raises stealth taxes on working people while failing to end the tax break that benefits oil and gas giants and doing nothing to stop those who benefit from non-dom status dodging millions of pounds in tax.
As I set out, hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have the opportunity to vote against clause 5 on the personal allowance freeze, to vote for our new clause on the windfall tax and to vote to support businesses that want to grow by supporting our new clause on R&D.
I hope Members will join the Opposition in supporting fairer choices on the tax system in our country and in pressing the Government on the urgent need for growth in our economy.

Robert Syms: I rise, as I did on the autumn statement resolutions, broadly to support what the Government are trying to do. I am pleased that the Minister is in listening mode, which is good because not everything is perfect in these debates. Even if things are not quite right in the autumn statement, there will be further Budgets in the years ahead. I am sure she will have a very successful career and will be in the Treasury for a while, and I therefore hope she will take our comments on board.
Clearly, at a time when money is short and the demands of struggling people are high, it is more difficult to redesign the tax system in an ideal way. I raised in my second intervention the difficulty in which those earning between £100,000 and £120,000 find themselves, and I hope their marginal rate of 60% will be reviewed at a future date.
I have some sympathy with the comments about research and development. The Treasury has a habit of introducing incentives and then worrying about losing too much tax. Actually, research and development should be a priority for this Government. A business investing in new technology wants to know what will happen three, five or seven years ahead. Sudden changes to the research and development rate may undermine the funding model of new businesses. I am sure there will not be a change this year, but I hope we will review this area very carefully, because it was one of our better measures in previous Budgets.
My main remarks are about the windfall tax. I do not like windfall taxes, but the way in which the Government have designed this windfall tax is good because of the investment allowance, which is the subject of a number of amendments. The objective has to be to keep companies investing. We are blessed as a nation, as we have oil all the way around our coastline. The only question is, at what oil and gas price is it worth recovering?
What has happened in the North sea in my lifetime is a tremendous British success story. Getting oil and gas from the great depths of the North sea made us, at one point, self-sufficient. We still have a lot of oilfields that we can develop, but eking out further discoveries needs incentives. I am a bit worried about the windfall tax, but I understand the current political need to have one. I am pleased with the investment allowance, because it will encourage companies to invest, and that investment should help us to produce more oil and gas and should help the British economy.
Something else that has occurred in my lifetime is that Aberdeen and many other areas of the United Kingdom that are near oilfields have created thousands of jobs. Those people may no longer be working in our oilfields, but they are working in oilfields abroad. This is an area that we need to develop.
My concern about extending the windfall tax to 2028—I raised the word “extraordinary” in my first intervention—is that there will come a point at which prices fall, perhaps because there is peace in Ukraine or because other forms of energy come on tap. If we maintain the windfall tax, we will then do great damage  to the oil and gas industry. We need a way of assessing what the Government do and do not consider to be extraordinary.
Some years ago, the Wood review of the North sea looked at what could be done to extend the life of the North sea fields. It would be helpful if the Government reported on where they stand on the oil price and the windfall tax. It might be better if they employed an expert, independent of both the Government and the oil and gas industry, to look at what is being done to assess whether investment is being hurt and whether the rates are appropriate. We assume a rate of 35% all the way up to 2028; we are not assuming a reduction, even if oil prices reduce.
I see the autumn statement as a little like a business plan that we might show to our bank manager. It does not mean that everything will necessarily happen as set out until 2028. If we expect the industry to invest, it is important that it knows what will happen to the tax rate if oil and gas prices change. North sea oilfields and gas fields are five, 10, 15 or 20 years’ worth of investment, so they are long-term, not short-term, investments. We need to focus on the short-term need to raise money, which even the oil and gas industry probably understands. The investment allowance is good, and it will encourage short-term investment, but there will be long-term damage if we are not flexible enough either to reduce the rates or to abolish the windfall tax when we get back to more normal gas prices.

Caroline Lucas: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because my anger is becoming so extreme that I might burst at any moment. Does he recognise that this country has the world’s most generous tax regime for oil and gas companies? Does he recollect that BP’s CEO said the company is raking in more money than it knows what to do with? He compared his company to a cash machine.
Does the hon. Gentleman not think his constituents in Poole might be rather more impressed if some of the money that has been forgone by the Treasury instead went into making sure we have enough teachers in our schools and enough health workers in our hospitals?

Robert Syms: I am glad the hon. Lady is irritated by my comments, because I think I am right. We want a very successful oil and gas industry. My constituency is on top of the Wytch Farm oilfield, which has been going for 40 years. Most of my constituents do not know they are on top of an oilfield, so they keep writing to me about oil and gas. The reality is that we will need oil and gas over the next 30 or 40 years. Apart from power, many products derive from oil and gas.
Oil and gas is a very successful industry for the United Kingdom. The hon. Lady and I probably disagree on most things, but we need to ensure that we keep the industry growing, which will create lots of jobs. This very successful industry creates a lot of wealth, which does not undermine the fact that many oil companies are now investing heavily in renewables. The North sea investments of Shell and many other major companies are consistent with decarbonisation. What we can do in producing more North sea oil and gas and in decarbonising a lot of that production is very exciting.
That is my main concern for the Minister. This has been a difficult year for the Government, partly because of worldwide factors. I look around the world and see  shipping costs falling and inflation starting to tail off. I hope there will be peace in Ukraine, and I hope the Ukrainians win, which may well improve the economic situation over the next two years. The Treasury needs to be flexible in how it looks at the situation. When I listen to Opposition Members, I feel they have a very inflexible view of the oil and gas industry that I think would do us great damage. I am glad the Government are in listening mode, and I hope they listen further to the comments of Back Benchers.

Rosie Winterton: I should have reminded colleagues that when we are in Committee I am to be referred to as “Chair” or “Dame Rosie”.
I call the SNP spokesperson.

Richard Thomson: Thank you, Dame Rosie, for calling me at this point. We are discussing this Finance Bill still against a backdrop of problems with our energy security, the climate crisis and the cost of living crisis. Sadly, despite the rapid turnover in personnel in recent weeks and months at No. 10 and No. 11 Downing Street, there are still no signs in this Bill that the Government have any inclination to go about getting to grips with those three crises and challenges of our age.
The theme of the autumn statement, in as much as it had one, was fiscal consolidation, through a combination of fiscal drag and—where there were not direct spending cuts—spending increases in cash terms only, which failed to keep pace with inflation and therefore represented cuts in real terms. In discussing the autumn statement resolutions on Monday 21 November, I pointed out that there were a few measures the Chancellor could have taken if he genuinely wished to place the burden of an increased tax take on the shoulders of those best able to carry it.
One such possible measure we drew attention to was how non-domiciled UK residents could be taxed. In that regard, we particularly welcomed seeing new clause 8, on non-doms, on the amendment paper. According to the London School of Economics, the UK’s non-doms receive at least £10.9 billion-worth in offshore income and capital gains each year, which they are not required to report to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs or to pay tax on in the UK. Instead, those who enjoy that status can pay an annual charge of either £30,000, if they have been here for at least seven of the previous nine tax years, or £60,000, if they have been here for a least 12 of the previous 14 tax years. Those are inconsequential sums, given what would, in most cases, have had to have been paid if those earnings had been subject to UK rates of taxation.
The non-dom status is anomalous. The rules originate from Britain’s colonial history, and those with that status are entitled to claim a special tax treatment not available to ordinary taxpayers on this “remittance basis”. That means that even though they might spend most of their time in the UK, and might even have lived here for several years, unlike other UK residents they can avoid paying tax on their investments by locating them offshore.
A joint study by the University of Warwick and the London School of Economics showed that on average a non-dom using the remittance basis tax break has about £420,000 in unreported income and capital gains, which is more than 10 times their UK investment income and gains, which do not receive a tax break. That highlights the scale of what is being missed out on. The LSE estimates that if this loophole had been closed, £3.2 billion would have been raised for the public purse. It is inexplicable that this status is still allowed to exist, so we firmly believe that the Treasury should be looking at carrying out its own analysis of the matter, in line with new clause 8, and that future policy decisions should be informed by that.
I turn to new clause 2 and windfall taxes. We very much believe such taxes have their place, although we have concerns about the disjointed manner in which they seem to be being applied across the energy sector and about the fact that the Government seem to have given no consideration to applying a similar tax on other industries, outside the energy sector, that are also experiencing significant increases in profits as a result of current market conditions.
With a windfall tax we need to make sure that the revenues being taken are proportionate and are not harming investment, particularly in renewables, where we will find our energy security and where we can make a significant impact on the reduction in emissions that we all know we need. Amendments 2 to 4 and new clauses 2 and 1 would not necessarily lead to the gathering of all the information we would like, but they would contribute considerably to the evidence base needed to properly assess the policy of the windfall tax and how effective it has been. On that basis, those provisions meet with our approval.
New clause 7 calls for the Chancellor to publish an assessment of the provisions of this Bill on economic growth, on the UK economy as a whole, on individual nations and regions, and on average incomes. If the last two Conservate Administrations had any kind of thought base on which they were trying to establish their credentials, it was growth, whether that was in terms of levelling up or the ill-fated “dash for growth” that saw the rest of us who were not supporters of the previous Prime Minister risibly being tarred as being somehow part of an “anti-growth coalition”.
SNP Members might be sceptical in many ways about some of the intentions behind these initiatives and their efficacy, but as a broad point of principle, taking steps to share prosperity and wealth more fairly and to encourage a more even and sustainable pattern of growth are objectives to be welcomed. It seems unclear, to me at least, where this current Administration stand on these matters, because if anything, given some of their choices, it looks as though the UK Government seem much more intent on the tired old strategy of squeezing every last drop of growth they can possibly get out of London and the south-east in preference to encouraging other local economies to grow and develop to their fullest possible extent. New clause 7 and the information it would bring would enhance the evidence base on that.
Finally, one thing I hope we can all agree on is that a key driver of an effective growth strategy is the effective use of R&D incentives. The UK as a whole has lagged behind its major competitors, such as France and Germany, in the proportion of GDP invested in R&D. In achieving  growth, an increase in well-targeted R&D is important, but it is important to recognise that you do not fatten the pig the day before market. This is a long-term objective that needs to be followed if we are to start getting the benefits that R&D should be able to bring in innovation, new jobs, the driving of exports and all the other virtuous cycles we would expect.
Even in a picture of a UK lagging behind major industrial competitors, the story within the UK is shockingly imbalanced. Again, it is almost as though there were a vortex effect sucking R&D into London and the south-east. Scotland punches above its weight in many respects, but there are other regions of England to consider, and Wales achieves only about half the R&D that we would expect it to get on the basis of its population share. So in a UK that is already underperforming in R&D, there are significant imbalances, which are again distorting the regional and national growth picture. So it is perfectly reasonable that we should understand which businesses are benefiting from R&D credits, what areas these businesses are in and where they are geographically located. New clauses 3 and 4 would help to build that evidence base, which can help us to judge whether the Government are achieving their intentions on R&D.
I will draw my remarks to a close simply by observing that this is a poor Bill that fails to meet the trials of the present. It does not set us on the course we should be trying to set ourselves on to meet the challenges of the future.

Anthony Browne: I feel that I should first explain why I have a teddy bear on the Bench beside me, because various people have been making eyes at me. The bear is the prize for my Christmas card competition. As I am en route between the gift shop and having a photograph taken with the Prime Minister, I thought that I would sit him there.
As I said on Second Reading, I very much welcome the whole thrust of this Bill, which is needed to balance the books. I will not repeat what I said then, but I have a few comments on some of the amendments. First, amendment 2 to clause 5, tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), is about trying to publish the number of taxpayers who get caught in higher rate bands as a result of this Bill. I very much welcome tax transparency, and I very much welcome His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs telling people how much tax they will pay. There are many measures that we could take to promote tax transparency, but I can say with a high degree of confidence that, if this amendment were to pass, HMRC would not need to write to one single member of the public, because it is fundamentally based on a complete misunderstanding of how fiscal drag works.
The Bill keeps the personal allowance and the higher rate thresholds as they are, so somebody earning, say, £12,000 a year will not pay the base standard rate of income tax now and they will not pay it next year. The way that fiscal drag works is that people get pay rises, which push them into a higher rate band than if they had not got that pay rise, but that is not as a result of a change in the Bill. The wording of the amendment says that
“they have become liable to pay the basic rate of income tax (when they were not previously so liable)”.
It is mathematically impossible to have someone not liable at the moment who will then become liable as a result of the Bill.

Sarah Olney: I just want to clarify that what we are talking about in this amendment is where people are getting pay rises, and even though most people are not getting inflation-rate pay rises, they are nevertheless getting higher cash rises than they normally would have done because of the rate of inflation. For some people that will mean that they will paying income tax for the first time if their rise takes them above the personal allowance threshold, or, indeed, if it takes them above the higher rate threshold. That is what the amendment is designed to address—the fact that there will now be some people paying 40% tax on their increased salary, which, if the thresholds had risen in line with inflation, they would not have done. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to clarify that.

Anthony Browne: I am well aware of how fiscal drag works. I have been studying it, reporting on it and commenting on it for about 20 years. My point was that, as the amendment is worded, the person would have become liable to pay the base rate of income tax when they were not previously so liable. If they are not liable now, they will not become liable as a result of this Bill. The hon. Lady could have changed the wording of the amendment—she would need to go to lawyers to work out the wording—but, as it stands, literally no one falls into that category. The one category in which people could end up in higher tax bands as a result of the Bill is not actually mentioned, which is the lowering of the threshold for the additional rate of tax from £150,000 a year to £125,000 a year. So for example, if a person was earning £130,000 a year, they would not be liable for the additional rate of income tax—the 45p rate—now, but they will be as a result of the Bill. However, the hon. Lady’s amendment does not mention that; it mentions the standard rate and the lower rate, for which the thresholds are kept stable.
New clause 8 has not been selected, but the hon. Members for Ealing North (James Murray) and for Gordon (Richard Thomson) both talked about non-doms. I just point out that there is a lot about non-doms that I would tidy up. It is clearly not a perfect system, and I do not think that anybody would defend it. None the less, it was there throughout the time of the last Labour Government. They did many reviews on it—I remember those reviews—and they sort of tinkered with it a little bit, but fundamentally left it the same. They agreed with the arguments currently put out by the Government that it is an overall net gain for the UK economy and for the UK taxpayer.

Peter Grant: I am wondering whether the teddy should be moved on to the Front Bench. It could become one of the most effective Members of the present Cabinet.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned his belief in tax transparency, which is clearly something that we would all welcome. In his autumn statement, the Chancellor made a great deal of the fact that it would mean that somebody working full time on a minimum wage would get a pay rise of about £1,900. He did not mention that the Treasury would then take back almost £500 of that because of the increased tax they would have to pay.  Does he believe that it would have been more transparent for the Chancellor to admit how much additional tax somebody on a minimum wage would be paying as a result of there being no increase in the tax bands in this Finance Bill?

Anthony Browne: When the current Prime Minister, then Chancellor, initially froze the tax thresholds in the Budget earlier this year, he was very transparent; he said upfront that the Government were freezing the thresholds. He wanted to make sure that no one could accuse him of introducing a stealth tax rise. Previously when thresholds were frozen, Chancellors tended not to mention it during the Budget speech. They just let it pass through and it really was a stealth tax rise.
I want to make one general comment about the different amendments. They all call on the Government to publish documents and reviews of one form or another. I know that amendments are not allowed to commit the Government to new expenditure, or to change their tax take, but there are, literally, no new policies here whatever. As far as I am aware, the Opposition agree with basically all the measures in the Bill, which makes it quite difficult to suggest amendments that change any of them or to make a speech about changing them. However, fundamentally, I have a problem with legislation that urges Government to publish documents and tries to tell Ministers what to do in their jobs, because that is not the role of legislation normally. There is one easy way to get the Government to do what the Opposition want, which is to win an election; that is a little suggestion for them. If they want to get the Government to publish documents, become the Government. I do not particularly want them to, but that is the easier way to do it than trying to pass amendments.
New clause 3, which the hon. Member for Ealing North mentioned, calls for a review of the effectiveness of the research and development tax credits. I have a lot of sympathy with the broad thrust of that. I talked about that on Second Reading. Clearly, it is a big issue for my constituency. I have many life science companies that depend heavily on that tax credit. Their whole cash flow depends on it. They do research for 10 or 15 years before they earn any revenue—before they have any chance of getting money in through the door. They are funded by investors and part of their funding model is getting that tax credit. It has been alarming for them to see it being cut off in April.
Clearly, the Government are, rightly, worried about fraud in tax credits. There is a lot of fraud in that area, and a whole industry effectively encourages it, so the Government are right to tackle it. I know that the Government are committed to promoting research and development and championing the life sciences. The Minister has been generous with her time and we talked about it this morning. What the chief executives and leaders of all these life science companies want is reassurance from the Government that they are really committed to making sure that research and development in small and medium-sized enterprises is not adversely affected by this measure. I also urge her to meet the industry urgently to get to the bottom of this and to work out a regime to help them.

Victoria Atkins: I thank my hon. Friend for the constructive and eloquent way in which he has represented the interests of his constituents and those critical businesses in his constituency. I genuinely take this matter very seriously. In addition to a wider roundtable meeting that I am having next week with a broader range of sectors that may be affected by this, I wonder whether it would meet with his approval if we could have a meeting before Christmas specifically with the life sciences industry to try to ensure that we continue to see the thriving industry he has described, while also bringing about these much-needed changes to the R&D tax reliefs.

Anthony Browne: I thank the Minister for that positive and constructive response. I would be absolutely delighted, and I know that the industry would be delighted, to sit down with her urgently in the next few weeks to go through the different options.
My last comment on the R&D tax credits is on evaluation. Various people have mentioned in this debate and on Second Reading the effectiveness of those and whether they lead to more research and development. Clearly, we do not want to give good taxpayers’ money to businesses if they do not end up doing what we want them to do, which is doing more research and development. New clause 3 asks for evaluations. There are various published evaluations by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and other bodies already about this, but I would just caution against reading too much into the headlines, because the evaluations I have read combined the whole spectrum of businesses that claim research and development tax credits, including the fraudsters, the chancers and the people who are just doing stuff they would do anyway and trying to get a tax credit for it, and all the knowledge-intensive companies in life sciences and other sectors that are doing the valuable research we want to encourage.
I would caution the Government to base any policy on an evaluation of how the tax credit is spent on the businesses that they want to encourage, as opposed to the fraudsters and the chancers that they do not. Any change to the regime needs to try to separate and distinguish between those two branches. As a result of the constructive approach taken by the Government, who I know want to sort this out, I do not think new clause 3 is necessary and therefore I will not be supporting it. I do support the Finance Bill, however, and commend it to the Committee.

Helen Morgan: Thank you for your flexibility in allowing me to speak this afternoon, Dame Rosie.
I rise to speak to amendment 2, tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), and to amendments 3, 4 and 5, tabled in her name. This Bill is an unfair stealth raid on millions of hard-working low and middle-income earners during a terrible cost of living crisis. Thanks to the Conservatives’ threshold freezes, 6 million people will be dragged into a higher tax band by the end of 2028. Those stealth tax rates are not particularly obvious in someone’s monthly payslip, but that does not mean they are not going to hurt people struggling with the cost of living.
Basic rate taxpayers will pay an additional £340 this year due to the freeze of the personal allowance, and higher rate taxpayers are estimated to pay an extra  £1,700. Amendment 2 would require HMRC to write to all those affected by those income tax threshold freezes, to tell them whether they are paying more tax than they normally would and, crucially, whether they have been dragged into a higher tax band. It is vital that the British public have clarity on the Conservative increases to their tax liabilities from April and for that reason I wish to push amendment 2 to a vote.
The Conservatives promised not to raise taxes, as written in their own 2019 manifesto:
“This is a tax guarantee that will protect the incomes of hard-working families across the next Parliament.”
Three Prime Ministers and five Chancellors later, the Conservative Government have delivered an autumn statement with £24 billion in tax rises, all to fill a black hole—or indeed a blue hole—that they have created through their own incompetence. The Prime Minister and his Government are now breaking the Conservative manifesto pledge and the Prime Minister has no mandate for that. The Conservatives could at least make the British public aware that their promise to the country has changed by accepting amendment 2.
In 2019, the Conservatives promised voters a high-wage, high-skilled, low-tax economy. At a time when real-terms wages continue to fall, the tax burden has reached its highest level since the second world war and we have a chronic skills shortage, I would appreciate some clarity from the Prime Minister on the delivery of his party’s manifesto commitments.
I will also speak briefly to amendments 3 and 4. The Liberal Democrats were the first party to call for a windfall tax back in October 2021, when gas prices first began to soar. Through their delay in taking action, the Government allowed fossil fuel giants to get away with half a year’s-worth of untaxed super-profits. Amendment 3 would require the Government to produce an assessment of how much revenue has been lost through their delay. I am pleased that the Government are finally raising the rate of the windfall tax, but I am afraid it does not go far enough. If Shell paid nothing when the rate was 25%, it will still pay nothing when the rate is 35%.
Amendment 4 would require the Government to produce a quarterly assessment of how much revenue has been forgone through the investment allowance and publish the names of the companies that have benefited from the tax break. The lost revenue could have gone to supporting struggling households or protecting our public services, and the British people deserve to know how the money has been spent. I am also concerned about the environmental impact of the investment allowance. The Government state that they are committed to net zero, but at the same time the allowance promotes oil and gas exploration, while refusing renewable generators an equivalent tax relief.
Lastly, I draw attention to amendment 5. At a time when petrol and diesel prices are sky high, the Government should not be making it more expensive to own an electric vehicle. They have already scrapped the plug-in car grant and now they are extending vehicle excise duty to electric cars, which will only slow the road to electrification. I urge hon. Members to support these amendments to improve this Bill and to be honest about the impact it will have on British people.

Christian Wakeford: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Rosie. I rise to support new clause 2, new clause 5 and amendment 1,  which would remove clause 5, as set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray) on the Front Bench.
During the autumn statement, we heard a lot about blaming global issues. While there are global issues, there are also political choices that have got us to where we are right now. We have had the best part of a year of political instability. We have also had the run on gilts caused by the mini-Budget and an increase in mortgage rates. That was not a global issue—it was very much created here in Parliament.
We were promised an autumn statement based on fairness. People are really struggling. Fran has bravely taken on and beaten breast cancer twice. She is now unfortunately terminally ill with bone cancer that has spread to her brain. Instead of making special memories with loved ones, she is spending her final moments worrying about money. She is unable to heat her home, surviving on her husband’s part-time wages, universal credit and her disability payments.
While there was some help with benefits increasing in line with inflation, we had been calling for that commitment for months in order to remove that worry and anxiety. Unfortunately, it took until the autumn statement for the Government to come out and reassure the public who were struggling. Leighane, a 27-year-old mother, was due in court over her unpaid bills. She owed £334 in electricity and £638 on the gas bill, and her rent arrears were £1,500. Sadly, because she thought she had no support and nowhere to turn, she stepped in front of a train with her three-year-old daughter. There was no support for anyone like her in the autumn statement.
John was described as a well-liked man, who was homeless and struggled with drugs—I reiterate my commitment in this place that no one chooses to be an addict and we need to do more to tackle addiction. There was nothing to tackle addiction and no talk about how we are going to fund that through the NHS at any point during this Finance Bill or in the autumn statement. Last week, he made a final bed for his trusted dog and died outside in freezing temperatures.
I will get on to the particular amendments now, Dame Rosie. We have heard about fairness, but the question is, fairness for who? We have a lot of measures about keeping the triple lock and increasing benefits with inflation. I welcome those—I really do—it is just a shame it has taken Opposition day debates, numerous questions on the Floor of this House and numerous written questions to get to that stage.
In new clause 5, we want to make sure that there are particular impact assessments and that the documents are provided. When we think that the autumn statement ultimately included £60 billion of spending cuts or tax rises, not to be able to share any of those documents just seems like ridiculously poor management. The mind boggles that we are not considering any of those elements.
There are also amendments on the Order Paper regarding the increase in tax allowances. Is it fair that the wealth of the top 1% of earners has gone up 185%? No. What are we doing to help low earners? We are freezing tax allowances. I listened quite earnestly to the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne); I know him very well and I know his background in the field, so  I will probably have a chat with him over a cup of coffee in the Tea Room about what we can do. However, the people of this country have been clobbered with £25 billion-worth of tax rises.
We have heard slogans before—I know a few things about those—saying “We are all in this together”, but are we really? We have seen no attack on non-dom tax status and no tax on private equity managers. We see a recession that will go on for longer than a year, and all the Government could talk about was softening the blow. Well, I am sorry, but I want to aspire to better than that for this nation. I want us to talk about growth, but I have seen nothing—on Second Reading, in any of the amendments or in the Minister’s speech—that goes in any way towards addressing growth.
We keep hearing a lot of talk and rhetoric about investment. I agree that we need investment, but that is why we have to focus on one of the loopholes and ensure, as the new clauses would, that a windfall tax actually delivers meaningful impact and that large oil generators and producers cannot just get away with investing money back into their own system. They get 90p of support for every £1 they are taxed, and that does not seem fair. It does not seem fair for the people whom I have just spoken about—the people of Bury South and the people of this country—and that is why the amendments are needed.
At the same time, real household disposable income is likely to be at its lowest level, with an estimated fall of 4.3% next year alone. We hear that the Conservatives are the party of sound money, but I just do not see that at the moment. Only Labour can provide the real growth and change that the country needs. Business believes it and the public believe it, and my God, we need it. That is why we should back new clauses 2, 3 and 5, and the plethora of other new clauses tabled by the Labour Front-Bench team, and I urge all colleagues to do so.

Caroline Lucas: I rise to speak in support of my new clause 1, on an assessment of the impact of the investment allowance.
When the Chancellor delivered his autumn statement, he did so not just against a backdrop of recession and rising inflation, but in the context of the twin challenges of the climate and energy crises—both of which have fossil fuels at their core—and while millions of households face fuel poverty and unimaginable hardship this winter. The UN Secretary-General memorably warned at COP27 that:
“We are on a highway to climate hell with our foot on the accelerator.”
My new clause would address the continuation of a policy that locks us further into fossil fuels at the expense of the taxpayer and at the cost of exacerbating climate breakdown.
Although I welcome the strengthening of the windfall tax to 35%, bringing the total tax on oil and gas to 75%, which is still notably lower than Norway’s 78%, it is genuinely incomprehensible that the Government have failed to close the gaping loophole that lies at the heart of this windfall tax.

Peter Grant: Does the hon. Lady agree that the Government have missed a huge opportunity in limiting the windfall tax to oil and gas companies? They could have introduced a windfall tax on other companies that have, fortuitously, made massive profits as a result of the pandemic.

Caroline Lucas: I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman. If I had to make a suggestion about where the Government should look next, it would be the distribution network operators—the companies that run the grids. There has been no spotlight on them at all even though they are making massive profits right now.
The hole at the heart of the windfall tax has led Shell—the UK’s fourth largest oil and gas producer—to pay no windfall tax or, indeed, any normal oil and gas tax at all. Indeed, oil and gas companies, which have made frankly grotesque profits, will still be able to claim £91.40 in tax relief for every £100 invested in oil and gas infrastructure. What is more, from January 1 a company spending £100 on upstream decarbonisation—which essentially translates as reducing emissions from the process of extracting oil and gas that goes on to be burned—will now be eligible for £109 relief. In other words, the taxpayer is actually paying the oil companies, which are already raking in massive profits—not the other way around.
The Government plan to make real-terms cuts to Departments that have already been starved of funding. They talk about “sacrifices” and “difficult decisions”, as the Chancellor has. Charities warn of a humanitarian crisis, and new research published this weekend shows that almost 200,000 additional young families will be pushed into fuel poverty come April when the energy price guarantee rises to £3,000. In that context, how can the Government possibly justify a situation in which taxpayers are supporting oil and gas companies, whose profits have absolutely ballooned, to fulfil obligations that they can perfectly well afford to pay for themselves.
It is also worth comparing this tax with the one on low-carbon electricity generators, which will be subject to a windfall tax of 45% for revenues above £75 per MWh, yet will not be eligible for investment relief at all. That leads to a ludicrous situation whereby companies will get a bigger tax break for building a wind turbine to power an oil rig than for building one that generates power for the energy grid. I simply cannot see how that is defensible in any shape or form.
The autumn statement should have been the moment where the Chancellor launched a transformation of our economy, powered by abundant renewable energy and with good green jobs. Instead, we had continued support for a costly and slow nuclear white elephant, and for the fossil fuels choking our planet. The so-called investment allowance—it is better termed “obscene subsidy”—is, frankly, a disgrace that fails to tax oil and gas companies properly and comes at huge cost to the public purse. Indeed, it has been estimated that if Rosebank—the UKs largest undeveloped oilfield—is developed, its owners would effectively receive more than £500 million in taxpayer subsidies.
To put that figure into context, it would be enough to extend free school meals to every child whose family receives universal credit, to pay the annual salaries of more than 14,000 nurses, or to build one new medium-sized hospital. Choosing between genuinely improving our  society or subsidising a climate-wrecking project—Rosebank, in this case, which would produce more emissions than 28 low-income countries combined—should not be a difficult choice.
Make no mistake, it is a subsidy—including, it would appear, according to the Government’s own definition in the Subsidy Control Act 2022. I am sure the Government will deny that, but perhaps they will be more inclined to take note of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which has stated that the investment allowance
“means that North Sea investment will be massively subsidised”,
through which loss-making investments could be rendered commercial.
Put simply, my new clause would require the Government to publish an assessment of the impact of the investment allowance on revenue raised by the windfall tax. The Government estimate that the oil and gas sector will pay around £80 billion in tax over the next six years, but it is essential that we have greater transparency on how much revenue will be forgone. That revenue could help to finance a real retrofit revolution to upgrade the UK’s leaky homes so that we get off gas for good.
Of course, I welcome the £6 billion investment in energy efficiency from 2025, but that will be of little comfort to households that are struggling to heat their homes right now. Crucially, my amendment would also require the Government’s assessment to cover the impact of the investment allowance on the UK’s ability to meet its domestic and international climate targets. The Glasgow climate pact, which the UK presided over, includes the commitment to pursue efforts to limit global heating to 1.5°C degrees, but the UN has made it clear that Governments plan to produce more than double the amount of fossil fuels in 2030 than would be consistent with staying below that critical threshold. I am aware that a number of amendments seek that kind of assessment of the investment allowance, and I welcome them, but I believe mine goes further because it would require the assessment to consider the impact on the 1.5° target, in addition to net zero and the UK’s carbon budgets.
It is no longer acceptable for the Government to look at its policies in isolation from our planet’s shared carbon budget. Not only does oil and gas extracted in the UK add to global emissions regardless of where it is burned, but, as the Committee on Climate Change has acknowledged, further extraction
“will support a larger global market overall”—
I remind hon. Members that that global market already has more oil and gas planned than we can possibly burn in keeping below 1.5°, and that is before we start extracting more. I therefore urge the Government not only to accept my new clause but to scrap the investment allowance once and for all, for the sake of our climate and the lives of so many people who are struggling with the cost of living crisis.

Victoria Atkins: I thank hon. Members for their thoughtful contributions to today’s Committee of the whole House. I will take a few moments to set out our views on the proposed amendments and the reasons why we will not support them.
I will deal first with amendments 3 and 4 and new clauses 1, 2 and 9, which relate to the energy profits levy clauses in the Bill. Starting with the amendments, my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Sir Robert Syms)  asked how “extraordinary” profits are defined, and we have not had a chance to draw that out in the course of the debate so far. The definition for the energy profits levy applies only to the profits that companies make from producing oil and gas in the UK and on the UK continental shelf. That is why we see reports in the newspaper about certain companies not contributing to the levy this year. I am not allowed to speak about individual taxpayers, but we have had to specifically focus it on UK business because we are raising taxes for the UK Treasury. That is how we are defining it.
My hon. Friend expressed concern, it is fair to say, about what will happen with the levy if prices go down, as we sincerely hope they will. Through this difficult announcement in the autumn statement, we are expanding the time in which the levy will operate until March 2028. We have done that to provide companies with certainty, because the latest OBR autumn statement price expectations for oil and gas across the forecast horizon exceed average predictions when the levy was first introduced. Commodity prices, particularly for gas, are expected to remain above their long-term average for the foreseeable future, but we will continue to keep the levy under review, as we do with all forms of taxation, while it is in place.
Moving on to amendment 3, the Government reject the premise that the levy should have been in place earlier. In the early months of this year, three significant things changed: first, there was a new war driven by Putin in Ukraine, which introduced significant instability to global energy markets; secondly, inflation was considerably higher than was previously expected; and thirdly, the Government had concrete information on the autumn and winter energy price cap. We therefore introduced the levy in response to these fast-moving conditions.
I welcome to her place the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), whom I have not had the pleasure of seeing across the Chamber, if she can look up from her phone. Just to give a little context to the statistics, before covid the British economy spent £40 billion a year on energy costs. Today, the annual figure is closer to £200 billion. That means the British economy has to pay an additional £160 billion a year on energy. That is like withstanding a pressure equivalent to an entire second NHS. That is why we have had to make many of these very difficult decisions in the autumn statement, but in particular we introduced the energy profits levy and are now increasing it because of this difficult financial situation.
Amendment 4 and new clause 1 would require the Government to report on how much additional revenue would have been generated without the investment allowance. We have always been clear that we want to see significant investment from the sector to help protect our energy security. The North sea will continue to be a foundation of our energy security, so it is right that we continue to encourage investment in oil and gas. The levy will raise substantial revenues following the changes introduced by this Bill—more than £40 billion over the next six years. That takes into account the tax relief available through the investment allowance. Figures on the amount of tax raised through the levy will be published periodically, in line with other taxes, and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs also publishes data on the costs of reliefs, and that is likely to include the investment allowance once data is available.
Although it is important to note that many companies already publish tax data through voluntary transparency schemes, the Government respect the commercial confidentiality of taxpayers. Companies within scope of the levy will be reporting information on their taxable profits in their tax returns. New clause 1 also refers to the impact of the investment allowance on the UK’s climate commitments, as does new clause 9. Supporting our domestic oil and gas sector to boost energy independence is not incompatible with these commitments, as we will need these fuels for decades to come as we transition to clean energy.
Our domestically produced gas generates lower emissions than imported seaborne liquefied natural gas, so supporting home-grown hydrocarbons helps to reduce emissions overall. When the upstream industry has reduced its overall emissions by 11% since 2018, it would not make sense to remove support towards further progress. The industry has agreed with the Government’s stretching targets towards 2030, and the investment allowance will provide additional relief to support that.
On new clause 2, tabled by the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray), I have already noted that the Government reject the premise that the levy should have been in place earlier. New clauses 3 and 4 concern research and development tax reliefs. With regard to new clause 3, studies published in 2019 and 2020 show that while the R&D expenditure credit incentivises £2.40 to £2.70 for every £1 of taxpayer money, the SME scheme incentivises just 60p to £1.28 for every £1. He asked about wider plans for R&D, and I am happy to tell him that we will continue the review into the R&D tax reliefs and publish a consultation on the new single scheme in due course. These reports are already public, so including new clause 3 would be of limited added value.
New clause 4 concerns error and fraud in the SME R&D tax reliefs. The most recent error and fraud statistics were set out and published in July in the HMRC annual report. We also have an ongoing inquiry into levels of error and fraud in the SME scheme. The analysis has not finished, but when that has finished, we will publish it. Since April, HMRC has written to more than 1,600 claimants who it is believed may have tried to claim money fraudulently. So far, 80% of those claimants have failed to respond within the 30-day response window, while a further 15% required further investigation after they had replied to the letter. That means that HMRC has protected at least £46 million of public money to date, with work ongoing that will see that updated.
In relation to the impact on life sciences in particular, my hon. Friends the Members for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) and for Poole both set out concerns for this vital industry within the UK economy. I hope that we will be able to resolve those concerns working with the bio industry, the Federation of Small Businesses and other R&D-intensive small businesses ahead of the Budget in the spring.
Moving to personal tax thresholds, in relation to amendment 1, the Government have been clear that clause 5 is a fair measure. The current personal allowance of £12,570 is still significant higher than it would have been if uprated by inflation from 2010. It means that  hard-working people keep more of their income each year. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire rather demolished the wording of amendment 2, but I can reassure the House that HMRC already takes forward such information in practice by informing employed people and pensioners of changes to their tax code. Self- employed people will receive assessments informing them of their tax liabilities and HMRC has an existing online service where people can check their income tax estimates and tax codes at any time.
In relation to new clause 5, we already publish assessments of income tax threshold changes. The tax information and impact note on the measure is available on gov.uk, and we have published distributional analysis on the impact on households for the measures announced in the autumn statement.
I move now to electric vehicles and amendment 5. The Government already publish data on air pollution, electric charging infrastructure and vehicle registrations by fuel type. It would therefore not be proportionate for the Treasury to reproduce data published elsewhere. Quite fairly, Opposition and Government Members asked about the uptake of electric vehicles in the future. The independent Office for Budget Responsibility expects uptake to continue to be strong, forecasting that around half of new car registrations will be electric by 2025. The other measures in the Bill are helping to support those 60% of registrations that occur through company car schemes.
New clause 6 deals with the broader impact of the Bill. It would require various reviews on the regional impacts across the UK on people with protected characteristics and different incomes levels. The impact of all legislation on different nations and regions of the UK is carefully considered by the Treasury. I note, again, that it publishes analysis of the impact of the Government’s measures on households at different levels of income in the “Impact on households” report, which has been published separately alongside each Budget. Our most recent analysis, published alongside the autumn statement, has shown that Government decisions made at the fiscal event are progressive. Low-income households will receive the largest benefit in cash terms and as a percentage of income. The Treasury and HMRC publish equality impacts in summary form for tax measures in tax information and impact notes.
We reject the need for new clause 7. The independent Office for Budget Responsibility provides economic and fiscal forecasts and is required to provide an assessment of the impact of Government policy. It has done so in relation to the autumn statement and it will continue to monitor the impact of the measures in future forecasts. Another report is therefore unnecessary.
New clause 10, tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), seeks a review of the Bill’s impact on small businesses. Small businesses are shielded from many recent tax changes. For example, the small profits rate for corporation tax means that around 90% of companies will not pay the main rate. The employment allowance is now at its highest level of £5,000 since spring. It means that 40% of businesses will be unaffected by the national insurance changes. Businesses will also benefit from a generous business rates package announced in the statement, which introduced a supporting small business scheme to cap bill increases at £600 per year for  businesses losing eligibility for some or all small business rate relief at the 2023 revaluation. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Richmond Park seems to be laughing at that support for small business. I hope her small businesses in Richmond benefit from the help that central Government are giving them.
To give businesses certainty, VAT registration thresholds will not change for a further period of two years from 2024. The UK’s VAT registration threshold is the second highest in the OECD, at £85,000, keeping the majority of businesses out of VAT altogether. We are setting the annual investment allowance at its highest ever level of £1 million from 1 April. That amounts to full expensing for an estimated 99% of UK businesses. We are also protecting businesses from soaring energy costs via the energy bill relief scheme, providing them with the certainty that they need to plan through this winter. The impact of all policy changes, including on small businesses, are considered and monitored as part of the usual decision-making process. We publish the tax information and impact notes, which include the impact of tax changes on business.
I hope that I have been able to provide some reassurances to hon. Members. I urge the House to reject the proposed amendments, and I commend clauses 1 to 12 to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 - Basic rate limit and personal allowance for tax years 2026 and 2027-28

Amendment proposed: 2, page 4, line 6, at end insert—
“(5) HMRC must contact every individual affected by the provisions of this section to inform them whether, as a result of the provisions of this section—
(a) they have become liable to pay the basic rate of income tax (when they were not previously so liable);
(b) they have become liable to pay the higher rate of income tax (when they were not previously so liable); and
(c) how much additional income tax they will pay as a result of the change.”—(Helen Morgan.)
This amendment would require HMRC to contact every individual who become liable to pay standard tax or move from standard to higher rate, and how much additional tax they will have to pay as a result.
Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 55, Noes 285.
Question accordingly negatived.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The Committee divided: Ayes 285, Noes 210.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 6 to 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 2 - Review of revenue from the Energy (Oil and Gas) Profits Levy

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within three months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, publish an assessment of the revenue estimated to be generated from the Energy (Oil and Gas) Profit Levy in each of the financial years 2021-22 to 2027-28.
(2) In addition to an evaluation of the revenue forecast to be raised by the Levy, the assessment must include an evaluation showing the estimated revenue that would have been raised if each of the following had been the case—
(a) the qualifying accounting period specified in section 1(3) of the Energy (Oil and Gas) Profits Levy Act 2022 had begun on 3 January 2022,
(b) the rate of the levy had been increased to 38% under this Act, and
(c) the amount of additional investment expenditure had been reduced to 0% by this Act.”—(James Murray.)
This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to publish an assessment of estimated revenue from the energy (oil and gas) profit levy in financial years 2021-22 to 2027-28, and set out how these figures would be affected if levy were backdated to 3 January 2022, and if the rate of levy was increased to 38%, and the amount of additional investment expenditure reduced to 0%, by this Act.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.

The Committee divided: Ayes 212, Noes 292.
Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 3 - Research and Development tax relief policy

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within three months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, publish an assessment of research and development tax relief for small or medium-sized enterprises.
(2) The assessment must include the Chancellor’s assessment of the effectiveness of R&D tax reliefs and plans he has to further reform of R&D tax reliefs.”—(James Murray.)
This new clause would require the Government to publish an assessment of their view on the effectiveness of R&D tax reliefs for small and medium-sized enterprises and their intentions for any further reform.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Committee divided: Ayes 212, Noes 290.
Question accordingly negatived.
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
Bill reported, without amendment.
Third Reading

Victoria Atkins: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The House has had a great number of opportunities over the last two weeks to debate the autumn statement and the Finance Bill that underpins it. We had extensive and comprehensive questions to the Chancellor when he delivered the autumn statement, and we then had two days of debate on the measures in the statement. We had Second Reading on Monday and Committee of the whole House today. I humbly submit that the House probably does not need to hear any more from me about the Bill.
I will quickly summarise the autumn statement. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor was honest about the difficult decisions this Government will need to take to tackle the cost of living crisis and rebuild our economy. The Finance Bill takes forward important tax measures to help stabilise the public finances, to provide certainty to markets and businesses, and to support growth. We are legislating rapidly on this small number of measures because we are serious about fiscal sustainability, which is essential for stability and growth.
I take a moment to thank colleagues on both sides of the House for their scrutiny of this small but important Bill on Second Reading and in Committee. I also put on record my thanks to the Bill team in the Treasury, to the policy and legal officials across the Treasury, HMRC and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel and, of course, to my private office—every Minister knows the important role our private offices play in supporting the passage of any Bill.
I commend the Bill to the House.

James Murray: On Second Reading on Monday, the Opposition made it clear that this Bill comes from a Government who have made the wrong choices time and again. In this Bill, the Conservatives have chosen to freeze the income tax personal allowance, which is the latest of the Government’s stealth taxes and will leave an average earner paying more than £500 a year more in  income tax. Yet while raising stealth taxes on working people, they have also chosen to leave billions of pounds on the table by maintaining a tax break given to oil and gas giants for doing the things they were going to do anyway.
Furthermore, as we have discussed several times, this is a Bill that leaves non-dom tax status unaffected. The Prime Minister has chosen to preserve a £3.2 billion tax break for UK residents on their overseas income—a tax break that should have no place in the UK tax system in 2022. I ask the Minister, for a third time this week, to answer my various questions on this matter, including whether the Prime Minister was consulted on the option of abolishing non-dom tax status.
On Second Reading, we made it clear that the Government could have taken fairer choices in this Bill. In Committee, we gave hon. Members a chance to vote against the stealth tax rise on working people, but Conservative MPs refused to do so. We gave hon. Members a chance to press the Prime Minister and the Chancellor on ending tax breaks for the oil and gas giants but, again, Conservative MPs refused to do so. We are disappointed that, having had these chances to improve the Bill, we are debating the same unamended Bill we had on Monday.
As well as the unfair choices that this Bill makes, we also know it comes from a Government with no plan to grow our economy or halt the decline in living standards. Over the past 12 years, the UK economy has grown by a third less than the OECD average—a third less than during the Labour years before. We are now the only G7 economy that is still smaller than it was before the pandemic, and over the next two years we are forecast to have the lowest growth of any country in the G20, bar Russia. In the coming two years, living standards are forecast to fall by 7%—the biggest fall on record—taking incomes down to the levels of a decade ago.
The truth is that a plan for growth in the UK has been missing for a decade and its absence is now having a greater impact than ever. That is why we have used the debate on this Finance Bill not only to argue in favour of the fairer choices Labour would take when it comes to taxation, but to set out our plan to escape the doom loop of Conservative economic failure and incompetence.
Under Labour’s plan, we would grow the economy, including by replacing business rates with a fairer system to support high-street businesses; by implementing our modern industrial strategy to work hand in hand with businesses to succeed; by supporting start-ups, so that Britain becomes the best place to start and grow a new business; by fixing the holes in the Brexit deal so our businesses can export more abroad; and by creating good jobs across the country with our green prosperity plan, while making sure people have the skills they need to work in the industries of the future.
Twelve years of the Conservatives has given us chronic economic stagnation. Their reckless incompetence earlier in the autumn crashed the economy, imposed a Tory mortgage premium, put pensions in peril and trashed our reputation around the world. Now, our country faces tax hikes on working people, the biggest drop in living standards on record and no prospect of our growth rate rising from its position at the bottom of the league. We cannot afford another decade like the last, and I urge all hon. Members to join us in voting against this Finance Bill today.

Eleanor Laing: I pause, lest there be any further contribution. I see none, so I will put the Question.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

The House divided: Ayes 280, Noes 205.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill read the Third time and passed.

Business without Debate

Adjournment  (Christmas and February Recess)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 25),
That this House, at its rising on Tuesday 20 December 2022, do adjourn until Monday 9 January 2023; and, at its rising on Thursday 9 February 2023, do adjourn until Monday 20 February 2023.—(Penny Mordaunt.)
Question agreed to.

Standing Orders Etc. (Liaison Committee Power To Travel)

Ordered,
That Standing Order No. 145 be amended as follows: in paragraph (4), after “House,” insert “ to adjourn from place to place,”.—(Penny Mordaunt.)

Standing Orders Etc (National Planning Policy Statements Committees)

Ordered,
That the Environmental Audit and Science and Technology Committees be added to the list of Committees in paragraph (2)(a) of Standing Order No. 152H (Planning: national policy statements).—(Penny Mordaunt.)

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Social Security

That the draft Social Security (Class 2 National Insurance Contributions Increase of Threshold) Regulations 2022, which were laid before this House on 7 November, be approved.—(Fay Jones.)
Question agreed to.

Pulmonary Embolisms: Diagnosis

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Fay Jones.)

Helen Hayes: I am grateful for the opportunity to bring to the House the issue of the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. Given the content of this debate, I put on the record that my husband is employed by the NHS.
I applied for the debate on behalf of my constituent Tim Edwards, who is watching the debate from the Public Gallery. Tim’s mother, Jenny, taught for 27 years in Lewes, East Sussex, before retiring in 2012. Jenny sadly lost her life to pulmonary embolism in February 2022. My speech is about the experience of Jenny and her family, and the research that Tim has undertaken in the aftermath of his mother’s death, which points to a significant issue with preventable deaths occurring as a consequence of misdiagnosed pulmonary embolism.
First, I want to put on the record my sincere condolences to Tim and his family on the loss of his beloved mother. I understand that in the weeks immediately prior to her death, Jenny had been enjoying time with her first grandchild. I am sure that, as Tim and his wife watch their daughter grow, they are constantly reminded of the relationship that she will now not be able to enjoy with her grandmother. Tim is motivated by his loss to seek to ensure that positive learning is derived from his mother’s case and many similar cases, so that diagnosis and the prompt treatment of pulmonary embolism is improved.
Globally, venous thromboembolism, which presents clinically as either deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, is the third most frequent acute cardiovascular syndrome behind heart attack and stroke. Pulmonary embolism is a blood clot in the vein passing to the lung and causing heart failure. The disease is serious but eminently survivable—if it is promptly diagnosed and treated, the death rate is 8%. Unfortunately, many pulmonary embolisms are misdiagnosed and attributed to other acute cardiovascular conditions because of the overlap of symptoms and the greater ease in identifying heart attacks and strokes.
My constituent has undertaken considerable research since his mother’s death, working with the charity Patient Safety Learning. He has estimated that there was a minimum of 400 excess pulmonary embolism deaths across England from April 2021 to March 2022, and that that excess figure is attributable to cases that were missed. He also looked at the age-adjusted mortality rates for pulmonary embolism across counties in England and Wales. There are some regions where the number of fatalities from the condition is almost three times the national average. The Minister may want to inquire as to what drives that discrepancy.
Let me give a sense of what can and does go wrong. In early February 2022, despite exhibiting risk factors and sudden symptoms, including fainting and collapse, my constituent’s mother, Jenny, was wrongly misdiagnosed in the care of an emergency department as having had a heart attack. She was then needlessly fitted with a stent. Upon her discharge from hospital, Jenny’s condition got worse again at home. She was dying. Yet she was reassured by a cardiac nurse who, over the phone,  missed the clinical signs that indicate pulmonary embolism: shortness of breath, chest pain in the centre of the chest and fainting. The nurse advised that if these symptoms continued, Jenny should call her GP, and she did so, but she never made her GP appointment. My constituent does not want this to happen to other family’s loved ones, because it was entirely avoidable.
Jenny was waiting in accident and emergency for more than 12 hours, and there were nine independent decision-making points, at any one of which pulmonary embolism could and should have been diagnosed, but the condition was only discovered in an autopsy. My constituent has subsequently been motivated to write a report about what went wrong, given the mistakes that Jenny experienced and his sense that the NHS trust involved was unable to learn from what happened. His background is in the financial services sector, working in reinsurance, and he has a strong understanding of risk management. From a review of Jenny’s case and a report released by the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch on this topic, part of the problem contributing to misdiagnosis appears to be that many emergency departments are frequently under-resourced and over-reliant on junior staff who may be ill-equipped to reliably suspect, assess and then treat pulmonary embolism, which is a relatively complex condition. That is supported by information provided by the Royal College of Radiologists, which commented on the lack of workforce sufficiency and a shortage of equipment.
Clinical staff in these settings have commented that either they do not have time or, astonishingly, do not feel that they need to follow clinical guidelines on how best to diagnose pulmonary embolism. On that last point, my constituent observes that there appears sometimes to be a culture of excessive leeway for clinicians to make their own decisions and a reluctance to follow clinical best practice. This is a source of concern.
My constituent has also discovered by interviewing a leading European professor in this area that the British clinical guidelines for diagnosing pulmonary embolism are out of step with those adopted across Europe and appear to exacerbate the risk of misdiagnosis, because the guidelines are thought of as subjective. He welcomes the news that these clinical guidelines are currently being reviewed. My constituent is also concerned that prior covid-19 infection has complicated the process of diagnosis in recent years, because some symptoms may be dismissed as linked to covid. However, this is inexcusable, as covid-19 was first established as an additional risk factor for pulmonary embolism by studies across Europe and the US in 2022. Prior covid-19 infection should give rise to greater, not lesser suspicion for patients presenting with symptoms.
In Jenny’s case, well-documented symptoms of pulmonary embolism were discounted because of her prior covid-19 infection, although it had been asymptomatic and she had made a full recovery. My constituent reports that it seemed that clinicians were assuming that covid-19 had been beneficial to Jenny’s health. Upon my constituent’s complaint to the NHS trust responsible for Jenny’s care, a serious incident report was commissioned and an inquest took place. However, in my constituent’s opinion, the NHS trust appears to have exhibited what he describes as a “shrug of the shoulders, these things happen” conclusion, inhibiting sufficient learning.
My constituent demonstrates in his report that the clinicians who treated his mother are at odds with academic literature on the symptoms of pulmonary embolism when they discuss the rationale behind their decisions. That is deeply troubling, given the alarming rise in pulmonary embolism fatalities across the country. The trust used the lowest level of investigation to contribute to its serious incident report, meaning that the subject matter experts chosen to contribute to the report were all involved in Jenny’s original care. The report’s conclusion was that a pulmonary embolism could not have been detected, even though Jenny displayed symptoms consistent with 90% of pulmonary embolisms. My constituent disagrees with the report conclusions, and he is concerned that it lacks objectivity and that there is insufficient learning to prevent such misdiagnosis from happening again. A higher level of investigation would have ensured independent contributors to the report, and the lack of that gives rise to concern about how many other cases may have been inadequately reviewed.
The sadness and frustration that my constituent feels at the circumstances of his mother’s death have been compounded by the intransigence he has witnessed in the NHS trust responsible for her treatment and the discovery that Jenny’s case was not alone. My constituent has been working with the charity Patient Safety Learning and his report will be published in December. The report contains nine calls for action. I have read the report and I have also received a response from NHS England to the recommendations in the draft. I share my constituent’s concerns that the response falls back on existing guidelines and current practice. It does not acknowledge my constituent’s finding of around 400 potentially preventable deaths a year due to misdiagnosed pulmonary embolisms. It makes no commitment to any process of review or change.
The Royal College of Radiologists has also expressed concerns consistent with my constituent’s observation about resourcing issues in emergency departments, and workforce and equipment sufficiency to enable scans to be undertaken. It stated that clinicians do not always have the equipment necessary to provide optimum care. The current vacancy rate in clinical radiology consultants is 8%.
My constituent’s research on this issue following the tragedy that his family has suffered is commendable. It highlights serious problems with excess deaths and misdiagnosis, raises serious questions about a postcode lottery, workforce sufficiency and the availability of equipment, and raises concerns about the culture of learning in the context of misdiagnosis.
I ask the Minister to agree to work with NHS England to commission a review of the data set out in my constituent’s report and the concerns raised by the Royal College of Radiologists, with a view to ensuring that the rate of misdiagnosis of pulmonary embolism is greatly reduced, and fewer families have to suffer the loss that my constituent and his family have suffered.

Helen Whately: I commend the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) on securing this debate. She is quite right to bring this issue before the House, as pulmonary embolisms are  not widely known about and are extremely challenging to diagnose. When diagnosed and treated, the survival rate is very high, and that makes misdiagnosis all the more tragic.
Let me express my condolences to Tim Edwards and his family for the loss of his mother earlier this year. I thank him for the research that he carried out into deaths from pulmonary embolisms, including the information that he has gathered about the variation in the figures around the country. The hon. Member set out clearly the sad facts of Jenny Edwards’ death, particularly how her pulmonary embolism was not diagnosed and unknown until the autopsy. I recognise the need for better diagnosis and I agree with her about the importance of that. I will talk about what we can and are doing, taking on board the hon. Member’s points. I will also talk about reducing deaths from pulmonary embolism by preventing their occurrence. We can never completely remove the risk of embolism, but we can all take action, especially younger people, to reduce the risk.
The NHS has guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence about diagnosing and treating pulmonary embolisms effectively, which states that patients with symptoms or signs of pulmonary embolisms who see a clinician should have a full medical history, physical examination and chest X-ray. Where there are signs, a D-dimer blood test and the Wells score should be used to determine the likelihood of pulmonary embolism. The challenge is often for the clinician to see the signs and symptoms in the first place, which is increasingly difficult in older patients or those with co-morbidities such as bronchopneumonia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma or covid-19. The hon. Member talked about that a moment ago.
That challenge is very much the focus of the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch’s national investigation into the timely recognition and treatment of pulmonary embolisms in emergency departments. Its report was published in March this year, and it focuses on clinical decision making and improving diagnoses. HSIB notes that the majority of pulmonary embolisms were correctly identified and treated, but it felt that the risk of serious harm or death warranted further exploration. The report found that recognising pulmonary embolism is particularly challenging for less experienced staff, especially when the signs and symptoms may be non-specific or atypical. The decision to initiate treatment is one that balances risks, and the decision can benefit from expert knowledge and skill. The report also notes that, despite expertise and the available tools to identify patients who may have a pulmonary embolism, a small number may always sadly be missed.
During the investigation, HSIB found that emergency department staff had asked for further guidance on the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. The fact that staff sought that information is a good thing and the right thing to do. HSIB made three safety recommendations on improving guidance and training for clinical staff. First, it recommended that NICE should review the report in relation to its thrombosis guidance. In response, NICE carried out a review of the guidance and has decided to update it to include recommendations for people with covid-19. NICE currently expects to publish the updated guidance in July.
Secondly, HSIB recommended that the Royal College of Emergency Medicine promotes best practice for diagnostic decision making. The royal college is reviewing its guidance, which will be done by the end of this year. In addition, it is reviewing safety information about pulmonary embolism and has education activities planned, including e-learning.
Finally, HSIB recommended that Health Education England develops a strategy to support the training of clinicians to develop their decision-making skills. Health Education England is working closely with professional bodies and provides them with simulation-based interventions to support improved outcomes in patient safety.
Getting a diagnosis of pulmonary embolism is by far the most critical issue to address, as treatments are effective provided that they are administered quickly. Anticoagulation medicines are the main treatment for suspected and confirmed pulmonary embolism. These medicines reduce the formation of further blood clots. After a diagnosis is confirmed, patients continue treatment with longer-term anticoagulant medicines to prevent the formation of future clots.
The importance of effective diagnosis and treatment for people with pulmonary embolism cannot be overstated. While we are on the topic, however, we can all take steps in our day-to-day lives to avoid an embolism—I am not making these comments in relation to any individual case, including the sad death of Jenny Edwards that the hon. Lady has been talking about, but for wider society.
Smoking raises the risk of unwanted blood clots and makes it more likely that platelets will stick together. Smoking also damages the lining of the blood vessels, which can cause clots to form. Stopping smoking  significantly reduces those risks. Sitting or being sedentary for long periods, such on a long-haul flight or working at a desk, increases the risk of clots forming. Because the blood is not flowing as much, the cells and proteins in blood settle out and form clumps. Taking regular breaks and moving around reduces the risk of clot formation. Regular exercise, staying hydrated, eating healthily and maintaining a healthy weight are actions that we can all take to reduce the risk of blood clots, which may lead to a pulmonary embolism.
GPs have an important role to play in helping to identify people at risk. The quality and outcomes framework and the investment and impact fund incentivise GPs to deliver proactive case finding and early intervention for patients at higher risk, as well as the ongoing management of patients with long-term conditions that put them at greater risk of blood clots.
In conclusion, raising awareness of pulmonary embolisms in clinical settings, and the significance of early diagnosis, is important but challenging. These challenges must be overcome, as timely and accurate diagnosis of pulmonary embolisms will save lives. Today’s debate has been an important opportunity to talk about how the healthcare system is working hard to improve on the issue. The hon. Member mentioned some research, and I would be happy for her to send it to me so that I can make sure that it is taken on board in some of the work that is going on in this area. I again pay tribute to her constituent, Mr Edwards, who has turned his personal tragedy into action to prevent future deaths due to pulmonary embolism, and for that he should be proud.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.